Live data from Hacker News

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

eff.org

251–260 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#251
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For whatever reason Big Media aren't going to allow you access to their content without the DRM. Not adding support for this standard will not change that. If you have Silverlight installed or play big budget games from Steam/Origin etc the odds are that your system is already full of DRM crap. Ultimately either consumers need to reject DRM or the media companies have to decide not to use it. However at the moment pe…

> For whatever reason Big Media aren't going to allow you access to their content without the DRM

What is "Big Media"? This is just pure speculation not based on facts.

There is plenty of high quality, paid-for content on the web already which does not require DRM.

IIRC, there are no more DRM on music on iTunes either.

It's just a matter of negotiating. If a company's better at negotiationg DRM-free content than Netflix, then too bad for Netflix. There's no reason why web users should support these costs.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't force you to install anything, if you don't want DRMd content don't install the DRM..

There is nothing in the spec that mandates you install a proprietary CDM.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would that be a problem?

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#254

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…

Why are you so vocal about DRM any way? I know why people are against it and I can imagine why others are for it, so yeah, why do _you_ personally favor DRM?

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#256
post #241
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I imagine it's because of the pretense of morality on your part. For me it sounded like a no-no you say to a kid.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#257
post #235

I hear lots of objection to DRM in HTML but no alternatives. If EME is rejected and not added to the HTML spec, lets consider some alternatives: 1. Leave things as they are, so Flash and Silverlight limp along to serve DRMed content, and native apps are required to watch on devices which don't support plugins. Verdict: Not great, but hey it's how it is now. 2. Lobby the media owners to drop DRM. Verdict: Highly impro…

I think that option #5 is ideal. I don't believe that DRM belongs in the HTML spec. I see the spec as more of a toolkit to support whatever it is you need done (video/audio APIs, canvas, etc). DRM features should exist at the user level, preferably in the browser (as you have pointed out) or as it currently stands in an external plugin.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would that be a problem?

Because then the standards would no longer be open.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It doesn't force you to install anything, if you don't want DRMd content don't install the DRM.. There is nothing in the spec that mandates you install a proprietary CDM.

The spec without CDM does not do anything at all. This spec goes hand-in-hand with having a proprietary CDM. So ultimately, standardising this at the W3C means having all open web users install a proprietary CDM.

Again, if this whole debate was outside discussing open web standards, this would be valid. But what we're discussing here is inclusion or not in open web standards.

Post reply on HN