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

181–190 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#181

Post by onli »

bitwize wrote: post #163
Nursie wrote: post #69

Great. 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…

Let me tell you how things work in the real world. When the people with money say "we want this", you don't argue. It doesn't matter if it's technically infeasible. It doesn't matter if it won't have the intended effect. When the people with money want something, YOU GIVE IT TO THEM. And let them deal with the consequences. Otherwise, you won't get the business, and life can otherwise be made very, very difficult for…

Let me tell you something about the state of the real world: The content Hollywood produces is already fully available on the Web. They try to fight that, but they lose. So the w3c is in no position where it is necessary to accommodate them to get their content. Besides, for the w3c, where is the business incentive, where is the money involved?

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#183

Post by Already__Taken »

shawnz wrote: post #108
duncan_bayne wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types. Sorry, I guess "strictly" was the wrong word. Rather, it is designed particularly for the streaming video use case. > We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret. True. But I think a pretty good idea can be had just by looking at the current state of the industry. > It'll happen regardless of the W3C. Exactly. Having the W3C head the…

Do you want to buy and run windows 9? Because to see the new series of the game of thrones only windows 9's CDMs can read it. That is the kind web you are negotiating for.

How long do you think MS would back port these things to win7 before they bump their minimumContentPlayer=win8 and then that's it you're not seeing any of that media to you pay up.

Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs, it will just be a major version behind, 6 months late and kind of buggy.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#184

Post by warp »

philwelch wrote: post #140
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.

This is up to the publisher, audiobooks and most japanese music is still DRM'ed on iTunes. (and the most annoying thing about it is there is no way to see that before you purchase).

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#185

Post by smsm42 »

bitwize wrote: post #163
Nursie wrote: post #69

Great. 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…

Let me tell you how things work in the real world. When the people with money say "we want this", you don't argue. It doesn't matter if it's technically infeasible. It doesn't matter if it won't have the intended effect. When the people with money want something, YOU GIVE IT TO THEM. And let them deal with the consequences. Otherwise, you won't get the business, and life can otherwise be made very, very difficult for…

The problem here it does not dissuade anybody. All TV content is available on torrents within hours of the release. All movies appear on torrents sometimes before, sometimes within days of theatrical release. Technical knowledge that is needed to obtain this content is pretty much downloading one piece of software and clicking one link.

>>> or Hollywood makes content available on proprietary platforms that provide it.

Let them. They will spend tons of money on it and all those money will go down the drain once somebody wakes up and understands that treating customers as customers is better than treating them as enemies.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#186

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#187

Post by rmc »

tzs wrote: post #148
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…

> Music is largely available DRM-free now, thanks to Amazon's MP3 store (at the least, I'm sure there are others) Apple should get significant credit here. It was Steve Jobs' open letter of 2007-02-06 to the big four labels calling for them to go DRM free that got the ball rolling. EMI agreed, and Apple started selling DRM-free tracks from them on 2007-05-27. Amazon's public beta of their MP3 store launched on 2007-0…

Actually I think you can also attribute it to (a) the iPod becoming massively popular and becoming synonmous with "portable music player", (b) Only Apple DRM and non-DRM-able MP3s supported on the iPod.

The iPod won the music player market, so if you tried to sell music with DRM you need to either (i) play by Apple's rules or (ii) have mundane tech users being confused when they can't play the music they bought on the what at become THE standard music player.

In 2006, during discusion of the Broadcast Flag DRM, an 82 year old senator was given an iPod and started to realise that lots of DRM wouldn't work with it. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/01/history-and-senator-st...

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#188

Post by eridius »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #123
eridius wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

But you can't get a pure HTML5 DRM experience! All the HTML5 bit is, is a Javascript API to a CDM decryptor that is every bit as crappy, proprietary, closed-source, insecure and buggy as Flash or Silverlight.

I'm still unclear as to how users are supposed to get the CDM decryptors. Are they installed like browser plugins? Or are OS vendors going to provide built-in ones for other companies to use?

Either way, the actual user experience is going to be a pure HTML5 player. If I have to install something first, that's unfortunate, but once it's installed I'll never have to think about it again, unlike the current situation where I'm confronted with the crappy plugin-based user experience every time I use the site.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#189

Post by alkonaut »

The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it.

But if a plugin framework is standardized, why settle for only DRM? Why not fix the whole crapfest that is plugin applications entirely? A standardized interface to a fast sandboxed virtual machine with good hardware support would be excellent. Currently there is javascript, ActiveX, flash, java applets, Silverlight, NaCl, WebGL and a number of others, each having their own benefits and drawbacks.

If I want to write a web based multi-threadced GPU accelerated webcam-using application that works on any compliant browser on any platform, what do I do? Isn't that what the next kind of web standards should be addressing?

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#190

Post by eurleif »

alkonaut wrote: post #189

The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it. But if a plugin framework is standardized, why settle for only DRM? Why not fix the whole crapfest that is plugin applications entirely? A standardized interface to a fast sandboxed vi…

>multi-threadced

Web workers?

>GPU accelerated

WebGL?

>webcam-using

WebRTC?

Post reply on HN