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

131–140 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#131

Post by jamra »

MichaelGG wrote: post #126
eridius wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell Steam is not DRM-free. It's just gamer-accepted DRM.

Which seems more rooted in the overall ease-of-use and lock-in Steam creates as well as goodwill towards Valve from their games. Steam's terrible - fight them on a transaction, and you could lose your entire library.

I don't think you lose your library. From what I was told, your account is put into a no-purchase mode where you can play your games but can't purchase any new ones.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#132

Post by mcot2 »

nitrogen wrote: post #98
mcot2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. I want to get rid of Flash because of security, battery life/performance and because it is not touch friendly.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#133

Post by jamra »

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…

I think that the early exploitation of Napster against the music industry made publishers feel like they were losing large amounts of revenue. There was one programming publisher who was trying to make the argument that the lack of availability for an affordable price was the reason why people were downloading illegally.

The counter argument was that his small niche was not indicative of a large industry. What you are mentioning about Amazon is pretty enlightening for me to read. If you think about it, the lock-in you suffer from iTunes is an outdated and anti-consumer stance. It is absolutely unnecessary to force a purchaser to store his digital goods on the cloud.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#134

Post by etherealG »

gsnedders wrote: post #46
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.

Fork the W3C? This is pretty much happened with HTML. The W3C membership voted against chartering a group to work on progressive improvements to HTML (v. XHTML2), initially in the form of Web Forms 2.0, and so the WHATWG was born. The big problem is copyright on all the specs is owned by the W3C. Oh, you want to spec CSS? Well, then you have to do it from scratch. Yes, HTML is now at a point where it is better specif…

are you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#135

Post by mcot2 »

w-ll wrote: post #73
mcot2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of…

They will be satisfied enough to offer HTML5 video. The point is killing off Flash. It is a lot easier to secure a smallish DRM module in a browser than a gigantic environment like Flash.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#136

Post by mcot2 »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #75
mcot2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

I don't even understand what the term "Open Web" even means. I don't see how driving video on the web away from flash and onto a standardized system is against the principals of openness, even if DRM is a requirement for content creators.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#137

Post by mcot2 »

zobzu wrote: post #101
mcot2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

note that, flash playback is still the default at most websites because HTML5 video playback generally sucks. its less efficient and provides a lesser experience in all major browsers. Eventually this will change, but still. That and of course, that NO single benefit is worth giving way to DRM. NONE. DRMs are a terrible invention from all points of view.

You would only see big investment in HTML5 video if big content sites could use it. Currently most of them want DRM...

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#138

Post by mcot2 »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #99
mcot2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have basically two options here. DRM for video and audio streams will be introduced by each browser vendor separately, or we have some kind of standard. I would rather see a standards based approach... This is reality. The merits of DRM really have nothing to do with this discussion.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#139

Post by gfosco »

MichaelGG wrote: post #126
eridius wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell Steam is not DRM-free. It's just gamer-accepted DRM.

Which seems more rooted in the overall ease-of-use and lock-in Steam creates as well as goodwill towards Valve from their games. Steam's terrible - fight them on a transaction, and you could lose your entire library.

Maybe if you're a total jerk about it?... I purchased the full iD collection once for like $90+, and the next day I requested a refund because several of the old titles didn't want to run. Despite the no-refund policy, they reversed the transaction. I've heard more positive stories than negative ones.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#140

Post by philwelch »

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…

iTunes doesn't DRM music anymore either. Haven't for years.
Post reply on HN