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

221–230 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#221

Post by makomk »

shawnz wrote: post #106
smackmybishop wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will this make the binary-only, proprietary DRM blobs less platform specific, exactly?

I suspect most DRM today exists for Windows only. Thanks to Android, there are now a ton of consumer devices powered by Linux that can browse the web. If publishers started using EME, they would probably be encouraged to compile Windows and Linux blobs for this reason.

There's already a Linux-based HTML5 EME decryption module that's used for Netflix on Chromebooks. In practice, it's actually less useful to Linux users than the current, nominally Windows-only options. It's locked to Google-approved hardware that is locked down to prevent you running your own software; if you enable developer mode it won't run. Meanwhile the traditional Netflix DRM can apparently run under Wine.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#222

Post by youngerdryas »

alipang wrote: post #49
zanny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics will kill Hollywood if we resist their bribes to cripple open technology and they flounder into obscurity. They currently control most of the chess board (from ISPs to copyright to the law in general) but we hold the key pieces (that are becoming more essential over time as the Internet becomes more global and pervasive).

I doubt killing Hollywood will be the solution. Industry will always try to gain unfair advantages through legislation as long as we let them. That is, as long as government is too large to really care about the little guy. Harmful legislation is much more present in large legislative agencies such as the US government or (to some extent) the EU. Decentralizing legislative authority to e.g. the states is the only way…

Having different laws in every state is exactly why most of the world can't watch Netflix. The EU is trying to consolidate things which gives incentives to negotiate contracts. The last thing the EU needs is more Balkanization as companies can't afford to comply with twenty different regulatory schemes.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#223

Post by Systemic33 »

josteink wrote: post #180

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…

By allowing DRM to become a standard, it will actually help the open web, because Linux users can then watch stuff like Netflix, HBO Nordic, etc which all use some closed source for displaying content, eg. Silverlight(Netflix) and Widevine (HBO). Currently its either a total hacky solution or impossible to use this on linux. Better have it standardized than a closed source restricted solution.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#224

Post by ferongr »

Systemic33 wrote: post #223
josteink wrote: post #180

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…

By allowing DRM to become a standard, it will actually help the open web, because Linux users can then watch stuff like Netflix, HBO Nordic, etc which all use some closed source for displaying content, eg. Silverlight(Netflix) and Widevine (HBO). Currently its either a total hacky solution or impossible to use this on linux. Better have it standardized than a closed source restricted solution.

No they won't. I doubt Linux users could be able to use Linux CDMs to decrypt EME content because they probably won't be released.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#225

Post by josteink »

bcoates wrote: post #74
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…

The enthusiasm against DRM is mostly based on principle because the technological argument is so uninteresting. "DRM is part of an standard s.t. required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open, opt-in and extensible" isn't possible and this is non-controversial among anyone not in the business of trying to sell it to someone who doesn't know that.

The enthusiasm against DRM is mostly based on principle because the technological argument is so uninteresting.

It's also based on the philosophical aspects of DRM.

Everything which digital technologies enables, DRM takes away. Every improvement enabled by new technology, DRM hinders. Everything which digital opens, DRM closes down.

DRM is artificially retro-fitting the limitations of the past into the future for no other sake than benefiting the already rich, with an added cost of taking control away from the people and handing it to the few.

DRM is digital ass backwards and has no place anywhere in this new century.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#226

Post by Daiz »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #220
makomk wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are free to implement whatever content protection systems the developers of the content protection systems allow you to implement, so long as it doesn't conflict with their contracts with content providers (which it probably will in many cases). The HTML5 ECE spec is intended to make sure it's a criminal offence to implement any "content protection" scheme without permission. In the eyes of both W3C and its propo…

How is it a criminal offence to implement a content protection scheme? Who's permission does one need? If I write a content protection scheme that runs everything through ROT13 I don't understand why anyone would care.

Because if you don't have a permission to do so, you're basically 'circumventing' DRM which is illegal under copyright laws in many countries around the world.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#227

Post by jiggy2011 »

Daiz wrote: post #226
jiggy2011 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a criminal offence to implement a content protection scheme? Who's permission does one need? If I write a content protection scheme that runs everything through ROT13 I don't understand why anyone would care.

Because if you don't have a permission to do so, you're basically 'circumventing' DRM which is illegal under copyright laws in many countries around the world.

Why would I need permission to implement my own CDM? I would not be circumventing unless I attempted to reverse engineer someone elses.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#228

Post by belorn »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #215
belorn wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such API will encourage more DRM to be access through the browser, which in turn lets malware exploit such vectors in similar way that Java applets, active X and flash has been plagued by remote code exploits. The amount of money and greif caused by such malware is very high, and was a major incentive for moving to HTML 5. The draft in question would rather move so we had 10-20 more such lovely (in)secure plugins all…

Just disable the plugins or don't install them in the first place.

Thats a horrible solution to suggest. It's like suggesting that people go buy body armor to deal with crime. It non-scaling, do not address the issue, and leaves those most vulnerable exposed.

Malware like to target those that are willing to spend money online. That mean those people who are most targeted are also those who won't disable the plugins that makes them vulnerable to attack in the first place. W3C should focus on making people safer, rather than encourage a environment that consumer, producers and even publishers will be hurt by in the long run.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#229

Post by nileshtrivedi »

This is sort of like Linux kernel supporting a fixed ABI for binary modules. There are those who say that it's a good thing and benefits are more than the costs. And then there are those who say that this would be bad and it prevents us from going through a temporary struggle that would eventually lead to a better solution for the long-term.

I tend to favor the second camp. Let's not compromise on our vision for the open web. We have gone through a lot and have achieved a lot. A short-term hassle is acceptable for the long-term win.

Edit: This is also similar to the classic paradox of tolerance: Should we tolerate the intolerant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#230

Post by Erwin »

nathan_long wrote: post #217
alipang wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it. To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.

>> DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. Sometimes excluding an option creates better outcomes. Example: you cannot become someone's lifelong slave in America, even if you voluntarily agree to it; The agreement is not legal. Not allowing you this option also protects you: if you could do it voluntarily, you could be coerced into volunteering ("well, I see you can…

There are already DRM plugins, such as http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html

Why aren't all videos on the Internet already protected by it? Why is a standardized API worse than the existing proprietary ones?

Here's an alternative scenario: widespread protection of content rights leads to a shift of entertainment programming to the web and a revitalization of the market. Hundreds of small produces, previously unable to deliver content because of crippling piracy are able to monetize production beyond hoping enough people click on ads. Any production company will be able to produce a cheap or free pilot and be able to sell the next season for $5, delivered safely worldwide. Greater safety of IP leads to greater investment.

A "long tail effect" of TV programming, much like Kindle, means large amounts of old esoteric become available on the Internet. Someone scouring Pirate Bay for some obscure old movie or TV show will now be able to easily get it from the rightful content owner.

Post reply on HN