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

71–80 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#71

Post by higherpurpose »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #8
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.

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…

So the system the way they intend it won't work, which means you won't get the content anyway.

Let's not get lost in semantics here.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#72

Post by duncan_bayne »

gsnedders wrote: post #65
duncan_bayne wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think there's any WG which includes all W3C members — most members simply don't care enough to wish to dedicate resources to every WG, not to mention the extra obligations it makes them take on via the patent policy. The situation isn't at all unusual — just a more contentious subject matter!

That's true ... but this is a most fundamental issue. I'd have expected that the companies that have benefited historically from the Open Web would be at least a little concerned. Like Google. Oh, wait.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#73

Post by w-ll »

mcot2 wrote: post #68
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…

I don't care how it gets done, but if we need this to finally kill off flash than I am for it. This problem is solved technically so let's just get it done. Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem? I don't understand why purists on the email list end up holding up something that will ultimately be a positive thing from a number of perspectives.…

> Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem?

Executives are never satisfied, and the world doesn't revolve around them. Should we allow tapping of our communications because it satisfies our leaders.

> Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls.

And what do any of these have to do with DRM? In fact, I can guarantee DRM will offer more vulnerable entry points, require more battery on mobile devices, and not be script/ux friendly.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#74

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#75

Post by duncan_bayne »

mcot2 wrote: post #68
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…

I don't care how it gets done, but if we need this to finally kill off flash than I am for it. This problem is solved technically so let's just get it done. Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem? I don't understand why purists on the email list end up holding up something that will ultimately be a positive thing from a number of perspectives.…

Because those purists - and I'm one - care very deeply about the principles of the Open Web, the very principles that are touted on the W3C website itself.

The fundamental issue is this: up until now, anyone with the will to do so and a general purpose computer could build a browser that could display all the content on a W3C-standards-compliant website.

If EME + CDM are endorsed, then that will no longer be true. The Open Web will be a thing of the past.

That is why we're trying to prevent this from going forward in its current form.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#76

Post by dannyeff »

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…

We (EFF) raised a formal objection to whether content protection was in-scope for the new HTML WG charter; our objection was overruled by the Director, but there was no vote of the AC.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#77

Post by duncan_bayne »

Zigurd wrote: post #67
gsnedders wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EME essentially defines a wrapper around a module, which can quite easily be a plugin, that implements the DRM. You can view it as a means to require smaller plugins than NPAPI, PPAPI, etc.

So, why have that discussion inside a standards discussion, especially if it brings in confidentiality requirements? Let the publishers talk among themselves and write their plug-ins.

In my more paranoid moments, I worry that the answer is: this work is explicitly intended to break the Open Web as we know it.

This is why I'm so keen to get all the requirements out in the open and start discussing them transparently.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#79

Post by duncan_bayne »

higherpurpose wrote: post #70
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…

> What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. When they accept organizations like MPAA on their board, no surprise this is the sort of decisions we get, and the sort of decisions we can expect for the web standards from now on. W3C has been corrupted, and it's only going to get worse for the web if people keep listening to them.

No, it's perfectly reasonable that the MPAA be allowed membership. It'd be worse if the W3C got to choose who could join.

The issue is the 'crisis of representation' - i.e., some voices are heard more clearly than others.

Post reply on HN