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

301–310 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#301

Post by Nursie »

talmand wrote: post #277
Nursie wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 delusi…

The general public doesn't have an issue with DRM, they happily purchase the content as-is today. They may grumble when they have to purchase a movie for the second or third time but they continue to do so. Therefore the public, being people with money, have stated overwhelmingly that they want content without stipulating anything about DRM, free or otherwise. You are attempting to apply your viewpoint on the general…

>> The general public doesn't have an issue with DRM, they happily purchase the content as-is today.

Do they?

>> They may grumble when they have to purchase a movie for the second or third time.

So not happily then. And not what they actually want.

>> but they continue to do so

Because the choice is that or piracy, and many choose piracy. 'Not participating in popular culture' is a choice, but it's never going to be a big one.

>> You are attempting to apply your viewpoint on the general public, which clearly does not agree with you.

The general public are dolts, but even you have admitted they grumble and don't get what they want.

>> They want DRM that prevents casual copying so that Uncle Bob doesn't give a copy of the latest movie to his entire family which is not an attempt at monetary gain.

Then they have failed, because cousin bill, Bob's kid, has that figured out on them innernets.

>> That way they only have to spend money going after serious piracy efforts that exist for the purpose of making money.

Serious piracy efforts like usenet, torrents, IRC etc? Nobody makes much money there. There are for profit piracy-streaming services that advertise I guess. Never seem to have much legal trouble.

>> Your statement assumes that Hollywood is being run by stupid people and that's a serious mistake to make in this type of debate.

It is. Powerful, litigious stupid people with a lot of vested, anti-consumer interests.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#302

Post by chc »

malka wrote: post #225
chc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a class, just about any program that depends on security through obscurity has this trait.

There is no 'Security through obscurity'. At best, you will have the illusion of security, wich is worse than no security at all.

This seems a bit like saying that there is no such thing as debugging because applications still have bugs afterward. I agree with the overall thrust that the security through obscurity is unreliable, but it is something, and it has even been effective to a limited degree on many occasions. (For example, many video game companies have employed defeatable security-through-obscurity successfully, because they only need to hold off the crackers for a couple of weeks.)

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#303

Post by fafner »

talmand wrote: post #286
Daiz wrote: post #151

This should really be at the top of every HTML DRM discussion: HTML DRM will not give you plugin-free or standardized playback. It will simply replace Flash/Silverlight with multiple custom and proprietary DRM black boxes that will likely have even worse cross-platform compatibility than the existing solutions. In other words, giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse . Some vendors will keep pushing f…

But that's the solution you would want, a plugin. That way the DRM is not part of every browser being made, it's an add-on that individuals can decline to install. Content providers want this and they will eventually get it, one way or another. If they don't get their plugin then they'll go with their deep pockets to demand laws that require all browsers to have this tech by default, without your choice. Which would…

What you are saying is just ridiculous. Adding DRM to HTML5 will destroy the open web and not preserve it.

First of all the DRM proposal does NOT talk about plugins. The DRM support won't be plugins. Microsoft already implements the spec in their latest IE and it doesn't work with plugins at all. They ship Microsoft's DRM technology as the one and only available DRM. Which is perfectly fine according to the spec.

So do you understand? This moves DRM into the browser and not into a plugin. The plugin thing was what we had with Flash and Silverlight. Those things were plugins which are not part of the browser (well except Google decided to make Flash part of Chrome).

There could be no law to force browser vendors to ship DRM. It would not be legally possible. It is silly to think so. And if it gets proposed we can fight it then. We don't have to bend over backwards now to take the DRM bullshit that vile companies like Google are proposing.

If content providers want DRM then they can develop their own crappy DRM plugins and applications. But they should under no circumstances be allowed to ruin the open web.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#304

Post by fafner »

higherpurpose wrote: post #93
azakai wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it As gsnedders said, it doesn't matter. The EME spec is written and pushed by Google and Microsoft, and Apple is on board. Those companies have a strong financial interest to do what hollywood asks here, and together they account for a large majority of the browser market. The only possible thing that could stop this is pressure on those browser vend…

I don't think Apple was initially on board. I think it may be there only since late last year. All of this started with Netflix, and the outrage should be directed mostly at them (but definitely at W3C and the 3 companies, too). Netflix got Microsoft (obviously, since Hastings is/was on their board), they got Google because of the Chromecast and perhaps some other previous partnerships, and also because Google is ver…

> I don't think Apple was initially on board. I think it may be there only since late last year.

Didn't Apple already ship an implementation of that API in Maverick?

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#305

Post by fafner »

eridius wrote: post #120
higherpurpose wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Apple was initially on board. I think it may be there only since late last year. All of this started with Netflix, and the outrage should be directed mostly at them (but definitely at W3C and the 3 companies, too). Netflix got Microsoft (obviously, since Hastings is/was on their board), they got Google because of the Chromecast and perhaps some other previous partnerships, and also because Google is ver…

> 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,…

> 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?

Because then the Web will rely on proprietary binary crappy blobs in its basic functionality. Something which can't be implemented in an open source way. A plugin like Silverlight is no necessity for the web and if Silverlight is crappy and dying then that's really a problem of its users and Netflix. It shouldn't be my problem as a non-Netflix user. If the Web however starts to depend on such a crappy binary blob (which is the result of the EME proposal) then we all have to suffer and it will be a problem for us all.

In other words: If Netflix insists on DRM then they should write their own crappy plugins and applications but not ruin the open Web for all of us.

> You're acting like DRM didn't exist on the web prior to EME, and would continue not existing without EME.

No, we are not. We are just saying that EME will make the open Web depend on crappy proprietary binary blobs and hence no longer be open or libre.

> It existed and continues to exist using proprietary software that is shoved down users' throats.

EME is exactly that! It's proprietary crap software which is forced down everybody's throat because it makes the former open Web depend on it. It's not only something Netflix customers will have to deal with. It's something every web browser and web implementation has to deal with somehow. Which is impossible for open and libre implementations. Thus it will be the end of the open web.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#306

Post by fafner »

pepr wrote: post #141
duncan_bayne wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, at the very least, it's a smaller piece of code :). (Don't get me wrong, I'm very strongly opposed to DRM and HTML5 DRM in particular.)

Maybe compared to Flash and Silverlight because they provide much more. But a CDM module would still have to do all the decryption, decoding, rendering, overlaying the browser window stuff. So it would still be a rather large piece of code.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#307

Post by greyfade »

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.

The failure of the Dreamcast was the pitifully small library, not piracy.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#308

Post by fafner »

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…

> 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.

Please read the spec. Your assumption is wrong! The EME just defines an API for JavaScript to access an unspecified CDM (the DRM module) in the browser. It does not specify how the DRM should work (it would be by definition impossible). It does not specify how a browser should acquire or handle the CDM.

Therefore EME will not only ruin the open Web. But it will be less portable than Flash. At least Flash somehow works on Linux.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#309

Post by yarou »

talmand wrote: post #277
Nursie wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 delusi…

The general public doesn't have an issue with DRM, they happily purchase the content as-is today. They may grumble when they have to purchase a movie for the second or third time but they continue to do so. Therefore the public, being people with money, have stated overwhelmingly that they want content without stipulating anything about DRM, free or otherwise. You are attempting to apply your viewpoint on the general…

Hollywood is delusional, though. They are missing out on a huge potential revenue stream by having DRM-free distribution platforms. Why was Megaupload so popular if people really liked DRM?

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#310

Post by greyfade »

Daiz wrote: post #151

This should really be at the top of every HTML DRM discussion: HTML DRM will not give you plugin-free or standardized playback. It will simply replace Flash/Silverlight with multiple custom and proprietary DRM black boxes that will likely have even worse cross-platform compatibility than the existing solutions. In other words, giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse . Some vendors will keep pushing f…

For this reason, I would advocate abandoning the W3C (which is now socially toxic) and creating a new set of standards (I'd love to see a replacement for HTML) which we can advance freely.
Post reply on HN