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

201–210 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#201

Post by ronaldx »

Why is W3C involved in this?

Not only does this create a lack of openness and transparency in the core of the web, but "big content" creators get to pass on the costs of DRM that nobody else benefits from, including to people who are not consuming their content.

Meanwhile, browser vendors will become uncompetitive - since nobody else can compete against a closed standard - and they become even more motivated to work against openness to maintain their existing oligarchy.

Could not be worse for the web.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#202

Post by espadrine »

mcot2 wrote: post #132
nitrogen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Security, battery life and touch-friendliness aren't necessarily the most renown features of a DRM binary blob.

Communicating with the blob in an open-source project will be particularly fun.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#203

Post by lucian1900 »

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…

Sadly, both Steam and Netflix still include DRM, it's just a bit less annoying.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#204

Post by lucian1900 »

masklinn wrote: post #164
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 has its own DRM, and games distributed via steam may have additional third-party DRMs (including SecuROM and other similar shite). IIRC GOG is only DRM-free games, although it is less convenient.

GoG is actually quite convenient, it has a much better website and a good downloader.

The only downside is the much smaller library than Steam.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#205

Post by cbhl »

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 recall DreamCast failing primarily because of piracy -- everyone burned games to CD-Rs instead of buying them.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#206

Post by Nursie »

Already__Taken wrote: post #183
shawnz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

>> 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.

And only supported on 32 bit intel machines!

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#207

Post by makomk »

jamra wrote: post #131
MichaelGG wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They used to ban users altogether, I think they've changed their policy. They also used to ban users if someone gifted them a game and the transaction buying the game was charged back.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#208

Post by captainmuon »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #158
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…

> DRM only works if you don't know how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs's_principle

Doesn't really apply here. When sending an encrypted message, the adversary doesn't know the secret key. With DRM, the adversary is the receiver of the message. You (or your computer) already has the secret in Kerckhoff's sense. It's just a matter of finding out where the key or the unencrypted data is stored - in the worst case by hooking up hardware to the mainboard or the screen.

You could make DRM "Kerckhoff hard", but you'd have to use a completely trusted architecture with secure boot and signed applications - which is not conicidentially where all major players are moving. Even then, there are a couple of loopholes (bugs/jailbreaks, you could tamper with the hardware, or you could just record the signal during playback ("analoge gap"))

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#209

Post by duncan_bayne »

From the mailing list: "[with EME] ... the publisher will have the possibility of deciding which platforms may access their content."

That was from one of the proponents of EME, touting this as a good thing. The response from another list regular was excellent:

"In non-web-terms this is the publishers deciding on what brands of TV you're allowed to play their content."

That's where EME will take the Open Web. We need to oppose it, strongly, urgently.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#210

Post by bagosm »

cbhl wrote: post #205
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 recall DreamCast failing primarily because of piracy -- everyone burned games to CD-Rs instead of buying them.

Not really... in the PSX there used to be TONNES of copied CDs and we all know how that went...
Post reply on HN