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.
Or your browser is faster, depending on what you're doing.
Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
91–100 of 424 posts
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even leaving that issue[1] aside, if the W3C were to endorse EME, then for the first time in its history the Open Web would not be implementable by anyone who chose to do so. That is the real problem here, not incompatibility with any particular software license. [1] which is pretty much the reason for the existence of the FOSS movement, so I'm sure you'll understand the inflexibility there :)
What do you mean by "Open Web"? AFAICT the term "Open Web Platform" is only 3 years old, and before that "open web" (not capitalized) just meant all the freely implementable standards, which makes your first sentence circular. We've had non-free things in the web since GIFs, and flash is currently used for a lot of the things that EME will be used for. I don't endorse EME on principle, but it is inevitable at this po…
http://www.w3.org/standards/
W3C standards define an Open Web Platform for application development that has the unprecedented potential to enable developers to build rich interactive experiences, powered by vast data stores, that are available on any device.
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html
The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#93Earlier 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…
> The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it As gsnedders said, it doesn't matter. The EME spec is written and pushed by Google and Microsoft, and Apple is on board. Those companies have a strong financial interest to do what hollywood asks here, and together they account for a large majority of the browser market. The only possible thing that could stop this is pressure on those browser vend…
I don't think Apple was initially on board. I think it may be there only since late last year.
All of this started with Netflix, and the outrage should be directed mostly at them (but definitely at W3C and the 3 companies, too).
Netflix got Microsoft (obviously, since Hastings is/was on their board), they got Google because of the Chromecast and perhaps some other previous partnerships, and also because Google is very interested in having content these days, which inevitably leads to them supporting the studios' corrupted ways to get the deals. And finally, I guess they got Apple, who saw Google and Microsoft was already on board, and thought it's a done deal, so why not?
I just can't believe that Netflix & Co would rather ruin the web than try to negotiate harder with the studios and make them understand DRM doesn't work, or just get some other kind of deal that's perhaps a little more profitable for the studios. I mean Google managed to give people the same "Match-like" service for free to the users, while Apple charges $25 a year, right? And Apple managed to make their music DRM-free years ago, no?
So I refuse to believe this is the only way around not using Silverlight and nothing can be done about it. There is a way - they just found it much easier to corrupt W3C, and I think this was MPAA's goal from the beginning. MPAA are the people who want to make IPSs all over the world police the web for them (ACTA/TPP), and want to be able to censor the websites they want off the web at will, with no judicial process (SOPA).
So you can only imagine what they have in mind for the browser vendors. Bringing DRM to the web is merely Step 1. Protocols like WebRTC's Data Channels that can make file-sharing easy through the browser, the way https://www.sharefest.me does it? Well, I guess that needs to be banned and discarded now. We can't have such piracy-aiding tools in the browsers, now can we? And so on.
It's clear MPAA runs the show already, if they got W3C, and 3 of the major browser vendors to do what they want. So expect more of this. MPAA member to take over after a "sudden" retiring of Tim Berners Lee from W3C in a couple of years? Wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#94Great. DRM. The best example of shooting yourself in the foot ever. Give customers encrypted content and the keys, try to prevent them from freely using the two together, undermine copyright fair use and first sale doctrines as you go along. Intended effect - No Piracy Actual effect - Paying customers get crippled products, pirates carry on regardless It's crazy. And the more they try to lock it down the worse their…
The DRM is becoming increasingly complex and elaborate, and taking longer and longer to fully crack. Compare PS2 to PS3 crack times, for instance.
The media executives are of the firm belief that unbreakable DRM is just around the corner, and that when they reach it, piracy will end and they can go back to charging whatever they want again. A return to the good old days of $25 CDs for one song you like and eight filler tracks.
But as far as music and movies go, the genie's already out of the bottle: even with unbreakable DRM, we can always fall back on old camcorders / capture cards and microphones to make lossy copies. I think most pirates will tolerate a bit of quality loss if it saves them heaps of cash.
I think they will ultimately succeed in game DRM that remains unbreakable for the entire duration of a game's market viability, though. Especially with required online connectivity components. But only time will tell.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#95> So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that meet
studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is provide a
clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element.
Which reads as: studios have nonsensical requirements, which are implemented and soon broken. And "we" (i.e. W3C) need to oblige this insanity for the sake of .
Put your own reason, but I bet it won't be good.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you suppose that EME + CDMs will be a better solution than Flash? What advantages do you expect?
I see EME as a way of reducing the area which DRM can affect. It is a sanely designed box around an insane (but persistent) concept. Whereas flash applies usage restrictions to the whole environment, EME is strictly for streaming video and audio, and encourages the rest of the system to be developed with open technologies (HTML5 and JS). It is the minimum evil necessary to meet the requirements of the existing contra…
Why do you assume that EME is strictly for streaming video and audio? Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types.
Also, you're assuming that it is necessary. We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret.
Finally, there's no reason that, in order for work on EME to proceed, the W3C has to compromise itself or the Open Web. It'll happen regardless of the W3C.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#97This 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…
> And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?!
Thinking isn't required to accept your paycheck -- in fact damaging the reputation of the W3C is their goal. There are fewer ways to fragment the standards of the internet better than undermining the integrity of the dominant standards committee by infiltrating it and proposing crap to be standardized.
Since the MPAA and her malicious allies are standing members then their propositions are considered seriously as a matter of policy, regardless of the stated goals and their actual effect.
Preventing piracy is at the bottom of a very long list of power that DRM provides, and maintaining control over your content distribution networks is at the top. The two have some overlap, but it's extremely limited (pirates don't pay, but content distributors do, so they will squeeze the distributors as much as they can).
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#98This 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.…
We want to kill Flash because it's proprietary and closed source (just like HTML DRM). Replacing Flash, which at least works on Linux, Windows, and Mac, with platform-specific DRM, is a huge step backward for the web.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#99This 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.…
Oh yeah, and in terms of being a purist - the company I co-founded produced a DRM system for Windows software. It's still in use, and I still make money from feature enhancements and bugfixes to it.
So please don't (like a few on the W3 list) paint me as some sort of anticapitalist hippie tinfoil-hat wearer.
I know a fair bit about DRM myself, which is why I say it has no place in the W3C or the Open Web.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#100Great. DRM. The best example of shooting yourself in the foot ever. Give customers encrypted content and the keys, try to prevent them from freely using the two together, undermine copyright fair use and first sale doctrines as you go along. Intended effect - No Piracy Actual effect - Paying customers get crippled products, pirates carry on regardless It's crazy. And the more they try to lock it down the worse their…
The DRM is becoming increasingly complex and elaborate, and taking longer and longer to fully crack. Compare PS2 to PS3 crack times, for instance. The media executives are of the firm belief that unbreakable DRM is just around the corner, and that when they reach it, piracy will end and they can go back to charging whatever they want again. A return to the good old days of $25 CDs for one song you like and eight fill…
DRM was and always will be pointless and insulting, no matter how elaborate it will become. Because it's not the right way to treat customers.