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

241–250 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#241

Post by sbuk »

sbuk wrote: post #171
w1ntermute wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A downvote? Care to explain?

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#242

Post by vetinari »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #236
vetinari wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is for implementing someone's other CDM. It's the "your browser is great, but I cannot watch Hulu in it, therefore it is unusable" scenario.

Why would you implement it yourself? Just integrate this standard and now your browser can talk to Hulu's CDM.

The CDMs are not OS independent.

This proposal only defines how the browser communicates with the module. It does not define, how the module communicates with OS and hardware. These modules will use OS facilities like Vista's protected path. If your OS does not support it (and free software OS like Linux cannot support it by definition), good luck getting it. And even if it supported anti-features like that, the owner may not bother with porting ("not enough market share for you").

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#243

Post by vetinari »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #237
vetinari wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can lock you out, when you are not using DRM.

They can only lock you out of their content (as they are already doing). They can't lock you out of HN for example.

This is problem for you, if you are browser creator: "your browser sucks, I cannot watch Hulu".

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#244

Post by jiggy2011 »

vetinari wrote: post #242
jiggy2011 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you implement it yourself? Just integrate this standard and now your browser can talk to Hulu's CDM.

The CDMs are not OS independent. This proposal only defines how the browser communicates with the module. It does not define, how the module communicates with OS and hardware. These modules will use OS facilities like Vista's protected path. If your OS does not support it (and free software OS like Linux cannot support it by definition), good luck getting it. And even if it supported anti-features like that, the owne…

True, but that's basically the same situation that you have right now.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#245

Post by [deleted] »

vetinari wrote: post #242
jiggy2011 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you implement it yourself? Just integrate this standard and now your browser can talk to Hulu's CDM.

The CDMs are not OS independent. This proposal only defines how the browser communicates with the module. It does not define, how the module communicates with OS and hardware. These modules will use OS facilities like Vista's protected path. If your OS does not support it (and free software OS like Linux cannot support it by definition), good luck getting it. And even if it supported anti-features like that, the owne…

[deleted]

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#246

Post by JonoW »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #240
Daiz wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We leave things as they are. If content distributors refuse to play without DRM, let them stick to inconvenient existing plugins. The DRM-insisting gatekeepers will ultimately need the web more than the web needs them, so they'll have to concede eventually , even if it takes a good while before it happens.

Why do they need the web? If the only way to watch Game of Thrones is to install a standalone application then people will simply install the standalone application.

I think this is the crux of the issue - should the web be a general purpose platform? Or do we draw a line somewhere and say some tasks, like watching protected video isn't something it should be doing. Personally I think all video consumption is a good fit for the web, it's seem awkward to split protected and unprotected video.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#247

Post by vetinari »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #244
vetinari wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDMs are not OS independent. This proposal only defines how the browser communicates with the module. It does not define, how the module communicates with OS and hardware. These modules will use OS facilities like Vista's protected path. If your OS does not support it (and free software OS like Linux cannot support it by definition), good luck getting it. And even if it supported anti-features like that, the owne…

True, but that's basically the same situation that you have right now.

Not really. The situation now is labeled "proprietary", the situation then will be "we just use standards". It shifts the framing.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#248

Post by bestdayever »

josteink wrote: post #209
jiggy2011 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that those making the most noise over this haven't spent the requisite 2 minutes reading the actual proposal. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... From the abstract: "This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler…

The fact that you can build a browser which doesn't support DRM doesn't alter that fact that if we allow this in, W3C has officially sanctioned that the web, one bit and one platform at a time, can and shall be DRMed. So sure. You can build a browser which only supports clear key. And that browser will not be a fully supported browser on this new encrypted and DRMed web. No FOSS-based platform will be a viable option…

Ahhh the old slippery slope fallacy.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#249

Post by dragonwriter »

jlgreco wrote: post #104
dragonwriter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who cares if Netflix needs it? If Netflix wants to do DRM in the browser, then they can continue to do it the painful way with traditional proprietary plugins. I thought part of the reason for DRM-plugins-with-standardized-hooks-in-HTML is that it was the one particularly widely-used current use case for plugins that browser vendors weren't aiming to replace completely internally with HTML, CSS, and/or JS APIs, and…

Why do you think they want to switch away from the old general purpose proprietary plugin mechanisms, which are specific to the browser? Because that stuff is a pain in the ass. I say let us keep it that way.

> Why do you think they want to switch away from the old general purpose proprietary plugin mechanisms, which are specific to the browser?

They (note that the people who want that I referred to in the post you responded to are the browser vendors, not the DRM-ed content suppliers) want to switch from that model because they want to narrow the interface to external software and encourage developers to do more with HTML and related technologies, to keep browsers more focussed and to provide more opportunities for HTML/CSS/JS-based extensions to interact with content.

They "want" to keep DRM available through a narrowed-, specifiic plugin interface because there is enough demand from major content sources that the alternative is either keeping general purpose plugin interfaces alive (which browser vendors mostly don't want) or driving certain major uses of the internet out of browser entirely (which browser vendors want even less) or sites that want to deliver content for which the owners demand DRM make their own browsers with propietary DRM baked in.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#250

Post by hugoroy »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #212
josteink wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you can build a browser which doesn't support DRM doesn't alter that fact that if we allow this in, W3C has officially sanctioned that the web, one bit and one platform at a time, can and shall be DRMed. So sure. You can build a browser which only supports clear key. And that browser will not be a fully supported browser on this new encrypted and DRMed web. No FOSS-based platform will be a viable option…

Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently. Most likely the new generation of games consoles provides a more compelling platform for them to send content to you than a web browser. There are no "CDMs in HTML5" , this is a nonesense statement. There is no part…

> Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently.

If they do not care, why are they pushing for getting a W3C stamp on their DRM system?

> There are no "CDMs in HTML5" , this is a nonesense statement.

To accept EME because proprietary CDM are outside of the spec is pure hypocrisy. To say that EME is okay because it would be working with clear-key systems too is complete BS, because such systems already exist and do not need EME. Hence the EME spec is only here to get standardised API for proprietary CDMs, which is why no one else but Hollywood, Netflix and Google & al. are pushing for this.

I would not care about EME, if they were not trying to integrate that into the W3C, which should stand for an open web, where free technologies are on equal footing with proprietary ones. EME would de facto force web users to have proprietary software installed in the form of CDM (which is DRM). Unacceptable.

Post reply on HN