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

261–270 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#261

Post by nitrogen »

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.

Moral high ground -- closely related to the tu quoque fallacy.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#262

Post by duncan_bayne »

Erwin wrote: post #230
nathan_long wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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, previousl…

> Why is a standardized API worse than the existing proprietary ones?

Because, as I've explained elsewhere on this thread, DRM is inimical to the stated goals of the W3C. They shouldn't be in the business of standardising DRM interfaces, they should be actively opposing DRM.

> widespread protection of content rights

Why do you suppose that the EME proposal will lead to that? Web DRM is already widespread. Are you suggesting that EME will lead to DRM plugins becoming available for non-mainstream OSs like Linux? There's no evidence to back you up there, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

> Greater safety of IP leads to greater investment.

DRM does not provide that.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#263

Post by duncan_bayne »

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.

What you are saying is completely untrue. Please, read the EME proposal. It is a specification for interop between Javascript and closed-source, proprietary CDMs.

If there is one thing I wish that HN would understand from this entire discussion: EME will not get you Netflix on Linux!

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#264

Post by duncan_bayne »

JonoW wrote: 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 hear lots of objection to DRM in HTML but no alternatives.

To quote Thomas Sowell:

"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: “But what would you replace it with?” When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#265

Post by sbuk »

nitrogen wrote: post #261
sbuk wrote: 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.

Moral high ground -- closely related to the tu quoque fallacy.

That'd be Argumentum ad logicam. The 'Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.' approach is bordering on a two wrongs make a right fallacy itself.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#266

Post by mikeash »

sbuk wrote: post #265
nitrogen wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moral high ground -- closely related to the tu quoque fallacy.

That'd be Argumentum ad logicam . The ' Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way. ' approach is bordering on a two wrongs make a right fallacy itself.

You're the one who brought morals into the conversation. The original statement is 100% correct: torrents do work just fine. Their morality was not mentioned until your reply.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#267

Post by gsnedders »

pornel wrote: post #231
jiggy2011 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open standards" are about documenting interfaces in such a way as that any person could develop a compatible implementation, nothing more. There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate. This proposal simply describes a standard protocol for a DRM system to be able to t…

EME doesn't describe an interoperable standard. It's only a tiny JS interface for invoking proprietary, deliberately unspecified CDM plug-ins (that are protected by DMCA, so you can't use them even if you knew how). It's as if you wrote spec for ` ` tag and said Silverlight is now a W3C Recommendation. That's even a step back from Silverlight today, because at least it has de-facto NPAPI standard interface that CDMs…

Beyond that, it doesn't even define the plugin API side of it, only the JS side. Defining the plugin API would make the proposal less bad (!= good) as then at least the plugins wouldn't be browser specific (though I suspect quickly enough a de-facto standard will appear)

I mean, at least something like NPAPI is (somewhat) documented, so that one can support all NPAPI plugins in any browser (say, Flash, Silverlight on OS X, etc.), even if what the plugins do themselves it totally undocumented…

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#268

Post by zanny »

youngerdryas wrote: post #222
alipang wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the most powerful nation conglomerate in the world has to appease a corporation and negotiate, you are already off the deep end.

The world can't get netflix because big studios want to release content where they want when they want, and instant data transmission over great distance impedes that if everyone can watch the latest show in their home country before they had 3 months to buy the box set in stores.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#269

Post by nitrogen »

executionhalted wrote: post #175
ihsw wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's happened before (WHAT-WG).

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#270

Post by sbuk »

mikeash wrote: post #266
sbuk wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'd be Argumentum ad logicam . The ' Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way. ' approach is bordering on a two wrongs make a right fallacy itself.

You're the one who brought morals into the conversation. The original statement is 100% correct: torrents do work just fine. Their morality was not mentioned until your reply.

If we remove morals from the debate, then the whole F/LOSS movement is meaningless. By ending the statement "...until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way." implies a moral lesson and as such is an appeal to morals. The value being proffered, that DRM is fundamentally wrong and shouldn't be allowed as it affects the end users rights (a moral issue if ever there was one) is lost when work is taken without consent to teach that lesson. My point stands, irrespective of whether a trite fallacy is relied upon. So no, I didn't bring moral into the discussion. The discussion is fundamentally a moral issue. So please, drop the faux indignation and lecturing, it's not appreciated
Post reply on HN