Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential • Hacker News Board

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#191

Post by pajop » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:09 AM UTC

rmc wrote: post #187

tzs wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

I agree with this. When I was buying physical music CDs and play it on my laptop - different CDs had different DRM formats. After a while, I had 6-7 different DRM-enabled players. I stopped playing physical CDs on my laptop after that.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#192

Post by ZenoArrow » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:13 AM UTC

x123 wrote: post #170

nemothekid wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PS3 only went uncracked for so long because Sony offered the option to install Linux on the PS3. Once Sony removed that option the people with the smarts to crack the PS3 did so. Once a magnifying glass was put under the PS3 it turned out that the "DRM" was actually horribly implemented (like Rand() functions that were essentially returning constants). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4lo.…

> The PS3 only went uncracked for so long because Sony offered the option to install Linux on the PS3. Once Sony removed that option the people with the smarts to crack the PS3 did so. It's funny how the facts change over time. Just to correct the facts here: the reveal of the PS3 hack occured on January 26, 2010 and then OtherOS support was removed on April 1, 2010 citing security concerns as the rationale. And to t…

You've misunderstood the facts. The PS3 security was not fully compromised with the first hack, and locking down the console was a motivation to those who ended up cracking the security properly (news released December 2010). Watch this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEFMAP0mTvY#t=0

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#193

Post by hbbio » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:18 AM UTC

Looks like the W3C may have been the inspiration for Games of Thrones...

Seriously, if there are men and women of honor in this organization, they should stand up against any form of standardization for DRM. DRM can be a proprietary extension for the people who want it.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#194

Post by robmcm » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:23 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #45

Why should DRM be part of a standard? Aren't plug-ins sufficient?

The problem is a normal plugin doesn't allow a browser vendor to write their own version. (iPhone + Flash for example).

Perhaps a plugin standard and API would solve it, then a vendor can build their own plugin (Apple) and allow others to use a non shipped third party (Firefox).

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#195

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:28 AM UTC

x123 wrote: post #170

nemothekid wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PS3 only went uncracked for so long because Sony offered the option to install Linux on the PS3. Once Sony removed that option the people with the smarts to crack the PS3 did so. Once a magnifying glass was put under the PS3 it turned out that the "DRM" was actually horribly implemented (like Rand() functions that were essentially returning constants). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4lo.…

> The PS3 only went uncracked for so long because Sony offered the option to install Linux on the PS3. Once Sony removed that option the people with the smarts to crack the PS3 did so. It's funny how the facts change over time. Just to correct the facts here: the reveal of the PS3 hack occured on January 26, 2010 and then OtherOS support was removed on April 1, 2010 citing security concerns as the rationale. And to t…

[deleted]

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#196

Post by andybak » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:28 AM UTC

A key paragraph:

link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2...

Well, as I say, the actual requirements that lead to the proposal of EME would be a start. This is how it looks to those who don't agree that EME is a good fit with the Open Web:

- 'big content' has certain requirements relating to preventing users copying data streams

- they won't make those requirements public (as you've said, the agreements are confidential)

- their licensees propose a technical solution that is unacceptable to many others because it necessitates the use of non-user-modifiable client components

- all proposed alternatives (e.g. FOSS DRM, server-side watermarking, client-side watermarking, no DRM at all) are shot down as being either too expensive or inadequate to the (secret) requirements

In a normal software project, I'd take an apparently insoluble conflict (the requirement for non-user-modifiable client components) to mean that we have done a poor job of determining requirements.

Hence my request for either a real user to talk to (e.g. an MPAA rep) or the actual requirements docs, which you've told me are confidential.

And that sets off my spidey-senses ... something is not quite right here.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#197

Post by espadrine » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:29 AM UTC

duncan_bayne wrote: post #172

bitwize wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> or Hollywood makes content available on proprietary platforms that provide it. What's wrong with that scenario, exactly?

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

> What's wrong with that scenario, exactly?

Nothing. It's the current scenario. It can bother users, but overall it bothers big media, because piracy is active and well on those proprietary platforms. That's the complaint we hear from them.

There's a large part of W3C that want change so that people with disabilities (such as poor vision) can enjoy big media products. Of course, that assumes that big media cares about implementing the ARIA stuff. I personally believe that their not caring in the past, on proprietary platforms, is an indication of what they'll do in the future, on the Web.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#198

Post by jeena » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:31 AM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #152

ekianjo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam will require you to be connected to their servers once in a while at least. There's no pure offline mode.

steam is just like any other drm system for your games. it phone home and prevents you from playing without a connection to the mothership. they just have saner fallback times than other ill talked solutions from EA. but besides its pretty eyes, its the same virus. good luck running online games as root.

I once bought and downloaded SuperHexagon on Steam but didn't have the time to test it at home. Later on the train (I'm commuting for two hours a day) I wanted to test it. Sadly I wasn't allowed without a internet connection which was really annoying.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#199

Post by fmavituna » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:32 AM UTC

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…

Overall I agree with you except your example of Steam.

Steam is DRM.

Gaming is going towards more online by adding value (just like SAAS can't be pirated like traditional software) always online games by nature such as Battlefield 4 can't be pirated as well.

That's possibly why also Simcity decided to go online but the added value wasn't enough and caused a backslash.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#200

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 10:32 AM UTC

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…

>> 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.

Strange how the general public don't get DRM-free movies from hollywood...

Either way, my point was exactly about 'Hollywood', if you want to call them that, it's them that are delusional about their ability to protect content with DRM.

>> Money shapes reality in this world.

In this case it sems to propagate delusions.