Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#161

Post by blinker »

cmircea wrote: post #83
bcoates wrote: post #63

What's the Mozilla Foundation's position on this? Are they planning on staying involved in a post-DRM W3C? It's about time to for the anti-DRM pressure groups to go down this list: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List And start demanding the member organizations to make a public statement as to exactly how far the EME DRM standardization is allowed to advance before they will withdraw from the W3C.

I am not sure of the official position, but I seriously doubt Mozilla will EVER implement this. They've been opposing H.264, which is a lesser evil (patents) than outright DRM.

They stopped opposing H.264 once they needed it for Firefox OS. I'd expect Mozilla to support the W3C DRM stuff as soon as someone makes Netflix a requirement for their Firefox OS phone. Maybe it won't be Mozilla but someone shipping Firefox OS will do the work. Then Mozilla will feel pressure to take the patch they provide. They're in a difficult position now that they're in the mobile phone OS market.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#162

Post by duncan_bayne »

wavefunction wrote: post #157
duncan_bayne wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The CEO of the W3C thinks this unlikely, and there's already the example of Netflix. They are one of the primary agitators behind EME, and they refuse to make their system available on Linux.

So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for every possible OS out there? Don't like it, don't partake. I can't understand this mentality...

> So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for every possible OS out there?

>

> Don't like it, don't partake. I can't understand this mentality...

What mentality? Perhaps you should read my other posts. To summarise, my position is:

- if Netflix wants to build their own DRM system, fine

- if they don't want to include my chosen operating system, that's their perogative, they just lose out on my money

- what is _not_ okay is for Netflix to lobby the W3C to include DRM in HTML5

The point I'm trying to make is that having a DRM standard in HTML5 does not mean that Netflix will suddenly start to support Linux. Several posters have expressed this idea, and it's just plain incorrect.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#163

Post by blinker »

ancarda wrote: post #150

Mozilla eventually decided to support H.264 in the tag. Is there any indication they will/will not support HTML 5 DRM?

Not supporting it would be bad for Firefox OS. It would mean that platform is locked out from streaming video solutions (ie. Netflix). This would discourage carriers from supporting Firefox OS. On desktop it doesn't matter so much. They have a marketshare to make a difference when they take a stand. However now that they're in the phone market, if no carrier will take Firefox OS due to the streaming video issue then the OS is dead before it really begins.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#164

Post by GhotiFish »

bitwize wrote: post #4

The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.

that second way? that's the way I want.

I want that second way to hurt, alot. Alot alot.

I want the way DRM gets onto the web to be the same vector malware gets onto computers. I want this to suck for DRM, it should suck. It should be painful to give up your rights. It SHOULD hurt.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#165

Post by AnthonyMouse »

wavefunction wrote: post #157
duncan_bayne wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The CEO of the W3C thinks this unlikely, and there's already the example of Netflix. They are one of the primary agitators behind EME, and they refuse to make their system available on Linux.

So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for every possible OS out there? Don't like it, don't partake. I can't understand this mentality...

>So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for every possible OS out there?

Who says it has to be made by Netflix or at their expense? I'm sure there are open source developers (e.g. Mozilla) who would be happy to create a multiplatform open source Netflix client. Netflix are the ones who make that impossible, and having done that their remaining alternatives are a) provide the client themselves, or b) incur the wrath of angry users. They've decided to go with (b), so here we are.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#166

Post by wavefunction »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #162
wavefunction wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for every possible OS out there? Don't like it, don't partake. I can't understand this mentality...

> So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for every possible OS out there? > > Don't like it, don't partake. I can't understand this mentality... What mentality? Perhaps you should read my other posts. To summarise, my position is: - if Netflix wants to build their own DRM system, fine - if they don't want to include my chosen operating system, that's their perogative, they just lose ou…

I guess I agree with you then, and thank you for clarifying.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#167

Post by eridius »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #140
eridius wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, though. It's not at the average user's expense. It's only at the technological idealist's expense. The average user is in fact benefited greatly by having an open, standardized approach, because it increases the likelihood that things will Just Work™.

No, it doesn't. The EME standard as proposed makes no guarantees about the availability of a CDM on any particular browser or operating system.

Well, no standard at all makes any guarantees about the availability of something on a particular operating system. HTML as a whole makes no guarantees that a web browser will even exist for your OS.

But a standard makes it a heck of a lot more likely that someone will have written something that works on your platform.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#168

Post by dendory »

When I try to view video content, being told that I am not wanted as a user is more common than not. If I go on Hulu, ABC, NBC, and even many YouTube videos, I am not that the maker of the video did not figure out a profitable enough ad model for my country so I should just go away. This country ban is so common because Flash players make it trivial to do so. If you extend the same to all types of web content, I fear this DRM will be used for far more than just some random Hollywood movies.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#169

Post by duncan_bayne »

eridius wrote: post #167
duncan_bayne wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. The EME standard as proposed makes no guarantees about the availability of a CDM on any particular browser or operating system.

Well, no standard at all makes any guarantees about the availability of something on a particular operating system. HTML as a whole makes no guarantees that a web browser will even exist for your OS. But a standard makes it a heck of a lot more likely that someone will have written something that works on your platform.

But this standard - EME - isn't for CDMs, it's for the interface between CDMs and Javascript. So yes, your Linux-based browser might well have EME support. But if the company who makes the DRM CDM doesn't support Linux, you're out of luck.

The existence of the EME standard does not in any way increase the likelihood of DRM vendors supporting any more platforms than they do now.

Post reply on HN