Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

lists.w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#31

Post by gsnedders »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #22
zanny wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it somewhat awesome that this whole html drm debacle is effectively what Richard Stallman has been saying for decades versus outdated entrenched old media interests. Except in this case, the web standards consortium is giving away your freedom for you. That is what pisses me off most, really - if big media was left to squalor in broken plugins and horrible drm, which should be horrible because its entirely ant…

Yes it sucks, but it's not too late. The issue of patents in W3C standards came up a decade ago; it looked like the W3C had caved then, but a 'firestorm of public criticism' (to quote an article at the time) caused them to back down. So, agitate. Tell people about it. Bring it up at user groups. Post to Hacker News :) If you know anyone in tech. journalism, tell them. Support the EFF.

Also remember it isn't the W3C as an entity that is really the problem — it's convincing a majority of member organizations of the W3C that is the problem. The W3C is just an industrial consortium, and will do what the industry wants. If that's DRM, that's DRM.

What happened with patents and what needs to happen now is to convince the majority of members who have no entrenched opinion that they should be against this work happening at the W3C (which by no means guarantees the work will stop — it may well just move to another venue, quite possibly closed, and still de-facto become part of the Web Platform), and that they should oppose this at the AC level, who ultimately control the direction of the W3C. (The AC, essentially, has one representative from each and every member organization.)

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#32

Post by fishy929 »

zanny wrote: post #12
girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

> I'm okay with DRM It seems really defeatist to say this. You are a consumer. You have the ultimate vote on everything, with your wallet, with the only exceptions really being what you need to survive and whatever your government takes. And I don't think netflix is on par with eating. My problem is I have no idea what to do about the w3c. I'd really like to know what alternative network protocols for document render…

> My problem is I have no idea what to do about the w3c.

If the W3C disappeared tomorrow, the world would be fine. (Similarly, the weather channel is not an essential service, planes can still attain flight without the TSA, and there is still life outside of the panopticon's walls...)

The W3C served a useful role a few decades ago when it focused on codifying historical standards that resulted from the early exponential growth but, like many others who took the minutes in important situations, they now seem to think they are "leaders." But documenting historical growth doesn't mean you are suddenly a source of good ideas; leading isn't something you say you will do, it's something others say you did.

I propose that everyone simply ignore the W3C whenever it's useful.

If only ignoring the TSA, the NSA, and corporate managers were as easy.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#33

Post by duncan_bayne »

wmf wrote: post #30
duncan_bayne wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... but the more I think about it, the more it's scary that things have progressed so far without the requirements being public.

There are versions that are public and I doubt the "secret" studio requirements are much different: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf (see Exhibit E on p. 90) In reality these requirements are not set in stone; they are a business negotiation. The first version of iTMS did not meet the record labels' DRM "requirements", but Jobs convin…

Why do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are very willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I think it's very clear who is unwilling to negotiate here.

It's true, though, that there's one point on which we aren't willing to negotiate: any W3C-endorsed standard must be implementable by anyone who chooses, without paying royalties or licensing patents.

EME falls foul of this requirement, because the CDMs with which it is intended to operate themselves fall foul.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#34

Post by TempleOSV2 »

God is perfectly just. Steal, get stolen from. Fuck with somebody get punished. Suffer, get rewarded.

God says... I'm_grieved Is_that_your_final_answer strip what_luck et_tu bizarre impossible couldn't_be_better lift no_way_dude enough_said it's_my_world exorbitant

----

I have God on my side. I have complete confidence in justice.

God claimed Deep Water Horizon.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#36

Post by wmf »

Touche wrote: post #5
girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

It will work under Google Chrome (not Chromium) on Linux most likely, as Google is a DRM vendor.

AFAIK ChromeOS supports Widevine EME and Chrome does not. Why is it enabled on one platform and not the other? Make of that what you will.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#37

Post by duncan_bayne »

fishy929 wrote: post #32
zanny wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm okay with DRM It seems really defeatist to say this. You are a consumer. You have the ultimate vote on everything, with your wallet, with the only exceptions really being what you need to survive and whatever your government takes. And I don't think netflix is on par with eating. My problem is I have no idea what to do about the w3c. I'd really like to know what alternative network protocols for document render…

> My problem is I have no idea what to do about the w3c. If the W3C disappeared tomorrow, the world would be fine. (Similarly, the weather channel is not an essential service, planes can still attain flight without the TSA, and there is still life outside of the panopticon's walls...) The W3C served a useful role a few decades ago when it focused on codifying historical standards that resulted from the early exponent…

Remember that ignoring copyright 'protection' methods is in fact every bit as illegal as ignoring the TSA and the NSA (at least, in most countries).

This stuff matters.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#38

Post by wmf »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #33
wmf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are versions that are public and I doubt the "secret" studio requirements are much different: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf (see Exhibit E on p. 90) In reality these requirements are not set in stone; they are a business negotiation. The first version of iTMS did not meet the record labels' DRM "requirements", but Jobs convin…

Why do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are very willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I think it's very clear who is unwilling to negotiate here. It's true, though, that there's one point on which we aren't willing to negotiate: any W3C-endorsed standard must be implementable by anyone who chooses, without paying royalties or licensing patents. EM…

Free software people aren't willing to negotiate about the right to read and modify code but non-modifiable code is the only way that DRM can work.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#39

Post by nly »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #25
nly wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh? If your DRM code is FOSS I'm just going to patch it, recompile it, dump out the keys, decrypt my media, and ignore all your constraints. Technical DRM only 'works' when the code is an obfuscated steaming pile and the implementation/platform/hardware tries to make it an incredibly difficult process to mess subvert. Theres never been a consumer-facing DRM technology thats made a lick of sense, and frankly I'm glad…

Sure - and the fact that you can do that is why 'big content' don't want a bar of FOSS DRM. Personally, I like the idea of copyright bits that travel with content. Some way of telling the user how the creator wishes the content to be used, or not used. Not enforced, mind you (because as you say, that's impossible) but just notified. Making it easier to do the right thing. That would go well with watermarking to ident…

I agree. I think if we promoted Creative Commons and generally made people more aware of how copyright law can be used to promote creativity, fair use and empower indy content creators that we'd become more sympathetic to the case made by Hollywood and the music industry, and maybe eventually get out of this rut of seeing it as a weapon for big media.

I wouldn't oppose any standard that made it mandatory for copyright and license information to be encoded in to image, video and audio content. Nor would I oppose a requirement for browser vendors to expose that information accessibly (on demand) to users.

I'd also like to see online registries that worked like TinEye or Midomi and let me quickly identify content with an emphasis on copyright and license discovery.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#40

Post by shawnz »

zanny wrote: post #17
duncan_bayne wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EME will work on Linux. The thing is, the CDMs with which it is designed to interface won't . It is technically possible to produce a purely FOSS CDM that will compile on pretty much any platform. However that idea has been rejected by content licensees on the grounds that it won't meet requirements, as defined by licence agreements that (so far) no-one is authorised to post on the W3C discussion list. Other ideas th…

I find it somewhat awesome that this whole html drm debacle is effectively what Richard Stallman has been saying for decades versus outdated entrenched old media interests. Except in this case, the web standards consortium is giving away your freedom for you. That is what pisses me off most, really - if big media was left to squalor in broken plugins and horrible drm, which should be horrible because its entirely ant…

> they are ending the open inter-operable web. It sucks.

I don't know what web you have been browsing, but as far as I can see, HTML5 is just now starting to replace flash for online video and audio. I am much sooner ready to support EME over flash, if it helps that transition, despite the ridiculous ineffectiveness and inconvenience of DRM.

Post reply on HN