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

111–120 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#111

Post by pdkl95 »

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…

> they are a business negotiation.

The fact that you (and others, obviously) think of this as a "business negotiation" is part of the problem. Many of us see Free {Software,Standards} as necessary for a free society, and as such should be considered some kind of "right" similar to those listed in the 1st Amendment.

The idea that we should "negotiate" away those rights is obviously not something that will be taken seriously, for much the same reason you may laugh at the idea that you should negotiate away part of the Bill Of Rights.

Also, for many of us not directly involved in the creation of standards like these feel like we're being handed an ultimatum: go give up on the entire concept of Free Software and run some binary blobs from an industry that has already shown itself to be incompetent and malicious (XCP, etc), or become 2nd class citizens on the web destined to be cut off from various parts of modern culture.

So yah, we aren't willing to negotiate on some of these critical ideas. The idea that movies or other entertainment could take priority over having a free society is at best lamentable and at worse /fighting words/.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#112

Post by Fasebook »

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…

W3C's reputation went out the window in the minds of all serious software developers with the concept of HTML5's "living standard" aka, no standard. This is the kind of standards we can expect from a standards body in the industry. The only solution is to start again from scratch, maybe on top of TCP/IP only.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#113

Post by ericd »

shawnz wrote: post #88
duncan_bayne wrote: post #61

Earlier 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…

Wouldn't another option simply be making it so that Netflix et al are in a position that they can't move forward to these new standards with their licensed stuff, but everyone else can? Them being the only ones left using Flash/Silverlight would probably give them a good incentive to push back on their contracts...

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#114

Post by beagle3 »

viraptor wrote: post #48
alexnking wrote: post #26

Maybe instead of getting everyone to adopt Silverlight, we could just make the web more like Silverlight. Like more closed and stuff, because movies!

Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM. It's a web content runtime similar to flash. Sure, some codecs exposed through the runtime on a windows machine supported DRM. But silverlight itself has as much to do with DRM as http that was used to transport that content.

> Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM

You are technically correct ("The best kind of correct"). However, the only places where Silverlight still enjoys any use is, as far as I can tell, in streaming services to PC and Mac (e.g. Netflix) - and in those places, the only reason they preferred Silverlight to Flash or HTML5 video is .. DRM.

So practically, Silverlight is on life support maintained by DRM. If e.g. Netflix decides to drop DRM, you can bet they will stop using Silverlight and switch to something more portable (e.g. Flash or HTML5 video).

Statistically, Silverlight use has everything to do with DRM.

(weak analogy: Guns don't have anything to do with causing bodily damage. They just shoot projectiles at high speeds. In this thread, we are discussing personal safety)

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#115

Post by wmf »

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.

I'm not making any kind of judgement or assigning blame, just stating the fact that free software is fundamentally incompatible with DRM. I'd prefer to see EME get killed. But as a practical matter, if we go into a negotiation with nothing that we're willing to concede, we can't be surprised if it stalls immediately.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#116

Post by ericd »

viraptor wrote: post #48
alexnking wrote: post #26

Maybe instead of getting everyone to adopt Silverlight, we could just make the web more like Silverlight. Like more closed and stuff, because movies!

Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM. It's a web content runtime similar to flash. Sure, some codecs exposed through the runtime on a windows machine supported DRM. But silverlight itself has as much to do with DRM as http that was used to transport that content.

If Silverlight is predominantly used for that reason (which I believe it is and http is not at all), it's a fair characterization.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#117

Post by shmerl »

simonsarris wrote: post #107

I suppose that the title assertion is to be expected. DRM only works if you don't know how it works. ~~~ I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM per se (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification. There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or su…

Steam can't be considered DRM free in many cases, for example because they don't let you backing up installers / packages, so if the service closes down you lose your collection. The only completely DRM-free gaming distributor is GOG. Humble Bundle and Desura are mixed.

You are right in general though. Going DRM free not only won't hurt any publisher, it will only gain respect from customers and will improve the quality of their products in a sense of improved usability, because any DRM means a crippled product (i.e. limited platforms availability, inability to make backups and etc. and etc.).

The problem is, that most legacy publishers are rarely customer focused and think that DRM helps their profits. And unprincipled distributors like Netflix are ready to oblige. But the irony is, those publishers only hurt themselves by continuing using DRM. It's mostly innovative publishers, or self published studios (and crowdfunded projects) that have common sense and avoid using DRM. Luckily some distributors are also principled enough to reject DRMed products from publishers. But such are a minority still.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#118

Post by eridius »

simonsarris wrote: post #107

I suppose that the title assertion is to be expected. DRM only works if you don't know how it works. ~~~ I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM per se (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification. There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or su…

> For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell

Steam is not DRM-free. It's just gamer-accepted DRM.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#119

Post by Fasebook »

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…

It becomes the defacto standard when it's adopted by developers, it's adopted by developers when their boss hires them to adopt it, they hire people to develop it because they are assured a return on their investment. Why are they assured a return on their investment? Because they decide what the standards are.

It's the same old regulatory capture game since before, but now it's divorced from government support.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#120

Post by eridius »

higherpurpose wrote: post #93
azakai wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ver…

> I just can't believe that Netflix & Co would rather ruin the web

People keep repeating this. How is it ruining the web to remove the requirement for crappy (and, at this point, end-of-lifed) browser plugins in order to play Netflix content? The only reason I, and I suspect most people, even bothered to install Silverlight was for Netflix. If I can get a pure HTML5 video-watching experience with no browser plugins, and get Netflix content, that is unambiguously a win for users everywhere.

You're acting like DRM didn't exist on the web prior to EME, and would continue not existing without EME. That's flat-out wrong. It existed and continues to exist using proprietary software that is shoved down users' throats.

Post reply on HN