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

51–60 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#51

Post by betterunix »

code_duck wrote: post #6
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.

They're going to have to create ways to play their media on Linux, with the growing popularity of the OS for appliances such as living room video players and products like the Steam Machine.

Netflix already works on Linux: Android devices.

What, you were talking about GNU/Linux? See, that is not going to happen. Instead, you'll see the Linux kernel, some GPLv2 userspace, and a hardware-enforced lockdown that renders the GPL useless. There will be jailbreaks but only a minority of people will even be aware of them, let alone care enough to actually make use of then.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#52

Post by duncan_bayne »

gsnedders wrote: post #49
rlx0x wrote: post #41

This is all so ridiculous, rtmp for instance is as secure a DRM as its ever gonna get and that never stopped me from downloading a stream. Even things like HDMI/HDCP is broken beyond repair. And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?! This whole concept of DRM is just idiotic, its enough if one guy breaks the DRM and releases it. Why should I even bother booting a prop…

What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. Not working on this isn't an option — take the W3C out of the picture and it'll still be done, quite probably behind closed doors, which is even worse for the web; MS, Apple, and Google are all likely going to ship this whether the W3C specifies this or not; for better or for worse, it is…

Are you sure about that? The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it, at least on the list.

Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows?

And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being promptly shot down?

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#53

Post by duncan_bayne »

betterunix wrote: post #51
code_duck wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're going to have to create ways to play their media on Linux, with the growing popularity of the OS for appliances such as living room video players and products like the Steam Machine.

Netflix already works on Linux: Android devices. What, you were talking about GNU /Linux? See, that is not going to happen. Instead, you'll see the Linux kernel, some GPLv2 userspace, and a hardware-enforced lockdown that renders the GPL useless. There will be jailbreaks but only a minority of people will even be aware of them, let alone care enough to actually make use of then.

Which is why it's so important that the W3C doesn't endorse this technology. It's not, in itself, the fact that it's incompatible with GPL3 etc. It's that for the first time in the history of the Open Web, the Open Web will not be implementable by anyone with a general purpose computer. That is the problem here.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#54

Post by jamesaguilar »

ihuman wrote: post #50
belluchan wrote: post #35

Can't we just fork the w3? Start using Firefox and forget about these people. Oh I'm sorry your browser is a little slower, but at least it's not Google made.

In order to "fork" the w3, you would have to make a new organization that would create a standard replacement, convince people to make browsers for it, convince server operators to support it, and convince people to create content with it. Granted, this is more simplified then it what would actually need to happen, so no, you cannot "just fork" the w3.

Don't forget the non-trivial task of avoiding whatever structural pressures that started the w3 on the path you hope to avoid.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#55

Post by gsnedders »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #52
gsnedders wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. Not working on this isn't an option — take the W3C out of the picture and it'll still be done, quite probably behind closed doors, which is even worse for the web; MS, Apple, and Google are all likely going to ship this whether the W3C specifies this or not; for better or for worse, it is…

Are you sure about that? The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it, at least on the list. Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows? And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being p…

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the lists actively in quite a while, and no longer have access to Member-Only lists.)

There have been votes about whether this is in-scope of the AC. As you can tell by work continuing, the vote passed. How many abstained (explicitly or by not voting)? I cannot remember, and cannot check.

The requirement to merely make it more difficult, but not impossible, has been stated on several occasions. Forgive me for not looking up references for this, but it's almost 4am and I ought to sleep. :)

And they believe, rightly or not, non-user-modifiable client components are needed to make this sufficiently difficult — as otherwise someone could easily make a tool to make it sufficiently easy to violate the licensing terms (assuming, for now, all content is licensed — which is itself questionable; if it's not then in many jurisdictions they cannot place restrictions).

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#56

Post by duncan_bayne »

betterunix wrote: post #44
wmf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you even name any other class of software that cannot work unless people are somehow forbidden to modify or even read the code? It sounds like this is a problem with DRM, not with the free software movement.

Viruses, worms, trojans, spyware (think the NSA), hardware verifiers (think laptops that only allow one brand of battery). There are a few.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#57

Post by duncan_bayne »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #54
ihuman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to "fork" the w3, you would have to make a new organization that would create a standard replacement, convince people to make browsers for it, convince server operators to support it, and convince people to create content with it. Granted, this is more simplified then it what would actually need to happen, so no, you cannot "just fork" the w3.

Don't forget the non-trivial task of avoiding whatever structural pressures that started the w3 on the path you hope to avoid.

The "Animal Farm" problem.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#58

Post by duncan_bayne »

gsnedders wrote: post #55
duncan_bayne wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it, at least on the list. Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows? And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being p…

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the lists actively in quite a while, and no longer have access to Member-Only lists.) There have been votes about whether this is in-scope of the AC. As you can tell by work continuing, the vote passed. How many abstained (explicitly or by not voting)? I cannot remember, and cannot check. The requirement to merely make it more difficult, but not impossible, has been stated on several occas…

In which case they're being supportive in private, and utterly quiet in public. That's a neat trick in itself.

But I don't think it's an issue of what they believe, it's an issue of what the actual licensing terms are. Those are the real requirements, and so far they've not been made available.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#59

Post by duncan_bayne »

Zigurd wrote: post #45

Why should DRM be part of a standard? Aren't plug-ins sufficient?

There are several technical reasons why EME is superior to the existing solutions; in particular, usability and ease of implementation are two.

However that doesn't address the fundamental problem that EME breaks the Open Web.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#60

Post by Zigurd »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #59
Zigurd wrote: post #45

Why should DRM be part of a standard? Aren't plug-ins sufficient?

There are several technical reasons why EME is superior to the existing solutions; in particular, usability and ease of implementation are two. However that doesn't address the fundamental problem that EME breaks the Open Web.

I could sort of get "ease of implementation" but would trade that on behalf of the implementers to keep their secret bullshit out of standards.

Have they got an actual case that says it's easier versus plug-in implementations that would, in real world cases, rely on libraries the content publishers agree to use?

Post reply on HN