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

231–240 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#231

Post by luckyno13 »

shmerl wrote: post #117
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 qual…

I purchase whatever I like on Steam and still hate DRM. They make it worth while with the sales and convenience.

My theory is that if Steam goes belly up, I can do a backup of my games, and use the same avenues pirates use to circumvent Steam. Hopefully they would release control of their games though if they went belly up.

As far as poor customer service, I suppose I have been lucky so far.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#232

Post by rimantas »

Fasebook wrote: post #112
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.

Standards matter only as much as the implementations adhere to them. Making HTML living standard thas the right thing to do, because only this really reflects the reality: browser vendors implementing differnt bits of the functionality described. Feel free to start from the scrach.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#233

Post by rimantas »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #92
aidenn0 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "Open Web"? AFAICT the term "Open Web Platform" is only 3 years old, and before that "open web" (not capitalized) just meant all the freely implementable standards, which makes your first sentence circular. We've had non-free things in the web since GIFs, and flash is currently used for a lot of the things that EME will be used for. I don't endorse EME on principle, but it is inevitable at this po…

http://www.w3.org/standards/ W3C standards define an Open Web Platform for application development that has the unprecedented potential to enable developers to build rich interactive experiences, powered by vast data stores, that are available on any device. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One…

Now tell me, how adding DRM disables all the open web bits.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#234

Post by eponeponepon »

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

Even that's a bit hopeful imho - consider how easy it is to imagine an advert declaring "Game of Thrones Season 5: Exclusive to Apple!"... Hell, it could be worse - "Only on Intel"?

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#235

Post by esteb_li »

flavor8 wrote: post #218
onli wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> The content Hollywood produces is already fully available on the Web. For people willing to pirate, it, yes. However, it's far less convenient to pirate movies and get them to your big screen TV than it was to use napster and listen to songs on your mp3 player. On the flip side, Netflix (i.e. content with DRM) accounts for roughly 1/3 of nightly internet traffic in the US. DRM facilitates consumer access to restric…

I don't think it's the DRM that facilitate anything. DRM is a tradeoff between pirated stuff and going to the theater. Netflix is a legal Napster while Hollywood are content with DRM as good enough protection.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#236

Post by beshrkayali »

dogweather wrote: post #177
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-free . . . Steam How is Steam DRM-free? You must first log in to your Steam account in order to play. Locked down. They seem to do it with very good UX, but it's DRM. I think this negates the first part of your thesis: that DRM-free is picking up.

They can also remove games from the store and from users' libraries: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-remove...

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#238

Post by byuu »

nemothekid wrote: post #145
byuu wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DRM is becoming increasingly complex and elaborate, and taking longer and longer to fully crack. Compare PS2 to PS3 crack times, for instance. The media executives are of the firm belief that unbreakable DRM is just around the corner, and that when they reach it, piracy will end and they can go back to charging whatever they want again. A return to the good old days of $25 CDs for one song you like and eight fill…

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.…

Yes, they certainly made mistakes with the PS3 crypto. And those mistakes are now certainly fixed in the PS4.

Although it sounds poetic, I don't believe for a second that the PS3 was protected by offering a limited Linux install option with crippled software graphics. The timing of the break just coincided well with that. Of course this is all my opinion on the matter.

The PS4 lacks Linux install support completely, so if Linux was the protecting factor, then people should already be tearing it apart, right? I could certainly be wrong, and there could be a gaping flaw, but my hunch is that it's going to take longer than the PS3 to crack.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#239

Post by lucian1900 »

masklinn wrote: post #213
lucian1900 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find the site good, but I only got grief from the downloader (back when I tried it a year or 2 ago, it may have gotten better since), for all of its slowness Steam's installation and updating process is much more hands-off and convenient.

The downloader is quite smooth, at least now. You still have to install and update manually, which is a bit annoying.

The one really cool thing in Steam is savegame sync, but not even all games support it.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#240

Post by eponeponepon »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #77
Zigurd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, why have that discussion inside a standards discussion, especially if it brings in confidentiality requirements? Let the publishers talk among themselves and write their plug-ins.

In my more paranoid moments, I worry that the answer is: this work is explicitly intended to break the Open Web as we know it. This is why I'm so keen to get all the requirements out in the open and start discussing them transparently.

Personally, even in my least paranoid moments, I think that's a certainty. Why let things be open when you can charge people for the key? See also: turnpikes.
Post reply on HN