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

171–180 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#171

Post by sbuk »

w1ntermute wrote: post #16
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vote for the hard way.

So do I. That way will mean that I will probably never be able to use it on my (Linux) laptop, but that's fine, because I don't want to use something with DRM anyway. Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.

The minute you suggest torrenting media is the minute you lose the moral high-ground. You aren't owed this stuff, neither are you entitled to it. If you don't agree with the way media is distributed, don't consume it. By torrenting the media, you are playing into the proponents of DRMs hands.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#172

Post by belorn »

cynicalkane wrote: post #52

The market problem is that people want to consume expensive art. There is billions of dollars of interest in making this market clear. The market will not go away because a bunch of hackers find it unethical. As the war on drugs has demonstrated, the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle . These principles will go nowhere. The interesting question…

So the options you are suggesting we have today is either a small number of solutions that take over your devices with God-knows-what but which are using browser plugin system, or solutions that take over your devices with God-knows-what but are using the W3C standard as an API, which leads to a larger number of God-knows-what solutions that do God-knows-what to your computer or has God-knows-what security issues that other form of malware can use.

How is that an improvement, and what does this have to do with a open network with cooperating nodes that any standard compliant software can parse and use?

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#173

Post by belorn »

cynicalkane wrote: post #72
mwcampbell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this proposed W3C standard really get us any further away from taking over our devices with god-knows-what secret solutions? After all, the CDM plugins themselves are still proprietary.

I think it's a case of pushing at the margin; exposing more details of the CDM plugins than would otherwise be exposed. Opening the CDM spec is also a design win for reasons that should be obvious to people who've worked on software. It's been the general trend in web browsers to minimize the permissions you need to give to plugins--I would expect CDM plugins to evolve the same way.

> It's been the general trend in web browsers to minimize the permissions you need to give to plugins--I would expect CDM plugins to evolve the same way.

DRM need control over the computer for it to ever do anything. Trying to sandbox DRM, is like trying to sandbox anti-virus software. It can't happen, and has never happened before.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#174

Post by icebraining »

dorian-graph wrote: post #152
jobu wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People hate DRM because it gives the content producers too much power, and then they treat consumers like muppets: http://neosting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pirated_vs_le... The Internet has shifted a huge amount of that power back to consumers (especially technically savvy ones), so it's understandable that something needs to change. It's also obvious that producers can't create decent content if they don't get…

I see people often saying to vote with your wallet and then go illegally download whatever movie, TV show, videogame or piece of software—which I find kind of funny. Why don't people vote with their time? Don't watch something, for example. I suppose the main thing I find funny is how outrageous people become when something isn't provided which seems trivial to life. I live in Australia where it seems we are one of t…

Why don't people vote with their time? Don't watch something, for example.

I'm not quite sure you understand the idea of voting. It's about making your preference known, and it doesn't quite work when your action has no impact on anyone else.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#175

Post by executionhalted »

ihsw wrote: post #141
cmircea wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Opposition is one thing, outright boycott and attacking the legitimacy of the W3C is something else. Frankly I think the latter is necessary.

What would happen post-W3C? Would the idea be to start a replacement?

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#176

Post by josteink »

blinker wrote: post #163
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…

I think you generalize the absurd US cellular carrier situation on to the world.

Most places in the world you have carriers which provides phone services, accessible by a SIM-card, and you have phones, which accepts SIM cards.

These are two entirely separate things which you choose entirely at your own bidding. You chose the carrier which provides you with a service matching your needs at a price you are willing to pay. And you use the SIM card they provide in the phone you have chosen entirely separate.

In a world like this a carrier doesn't "support" a phone. That would be like my ISP having to "support" my Dell PC, or me having to buy a PC from a limited selection offered by my ISP. It's an absurd position.

Most of the world does not work like the completely and fundamentally broken US cellphone market, and generalizing based on that is doomed to reap highly inaccurate results.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#177

Post by josteink »

holloway wrote: post #131

An argument in favour of the W3C policy is that DRM video plugins could be retired but what about all those sites that attempt to prevent right-click|save-as on photos, or on JavaScript, and why wouldn't they use DRM too? The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?

The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?

For now it does. But if we let it pass, you better believe that slippery slope we've went into is going to get a whole lot steeper.

The open web only has one option: Fighting DRM entirely and fundamentally. We don't need Netflix on the web, and definitely not at the cost of our fabulous, open standards' core values.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#178

Post by icebraining »

cynicalkane wrote: post #100
mwcampbell wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the crypto in the world is worthless for a DRM system if a user can easily circumvent the system by replacing one of the components between the black-box DRM module and the hardware in order to get a perfect digital copy of the "protected" stream. This is why "content protection" systems, like the one introduced in Windows Vista, tend to be so over-reaching; they want to create a leak-proof pipe between the "p…

That's a last mile problem the industry doesn't need to solve. How many people would rather hack hardware than pay money to watch TV and play video games? Of course, if it becomes cost-effective to hardware encrypt the entire stream, I don't think the lack of a W3C standard will make any difference in stopping it.

How many people would rather hack hardware than pay money to watch TV and play video games?

At least where I live, "chipping" Playstations was extremely popular. You could get it done for $40 without having to know a lick of hardware.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#179

Post by m_eiman »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #169
eridius wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does make it easier to add support to new platforms, though. If Linux support is just a recompile with a different compiler away (supposing the browser/plugin interface is a simple C API with no GUI), it's more likely to happen.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#180

Post by josteink »

This DRM proposition definitely needs all the resistance it can get. We cannot allow DRM into our wonderful, open standards. This is not an option. Not at any price.

I'm honestly surprised that Mozilla haven't been more vocal about this issue. Have they issued any statements what so ever?

Seeing what amazing things the web have enabled the last few decades, purely by being open, who are we to deny the future the same possibilities by locking it all down now? What sort of short-sighted asshole would propose such a thing?

To those who yammer on about Netflix: Allow me to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. He who gives up freedom for comfort deserves neither.

If this goes through though, what I see others are calling out for is a new consortium. If the W3C is hellbent on forking and fragmenting the web, then lets have it. But let's have it on our terms: By creating a new open web standards consortium.

Post reply on HN