Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

defectivebydesign.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#11

Post by simbalion »

codebeaker wrote: post #2

I thought the general consensus amongst people, including the general HN crowd was that it was better to allow the w3c to specify a "black box" with well defined inputs and outputs. Allowing vendors to slot in their own (probably closed source) implementation than it was to slam the door in their faces whilst screaming "SCREW YOU, USE SILVERLIGHT OR FLASH". Defective by design seems to be misinterpreting the "build t…

It's not inevitable. Every single bit of data that enters a user's machine from the internet, that user has a right to store and re-examine at their leisure. Anyone who says otherwise is a crook of the 'old ways'.

The internet does not belong to those people, it belongs to us. It should remain free and open and sane. A monopoly by giant corporate media conglomerates is not inevitable.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#12

Post by timwaagh »

I'd like it if this happened. if the web has some standard way to ensure DRM that means it will be possible to sell media (and hopefully possibly software) on the web without requiring people to be online at all times. It would be even better if the entire thing was managed by the w3c, not just the endpoints. that way everyone could make use of it. I do not think everything should be free although it's good if there is an option to give things away. but in general, developers and content creators have to eat.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#13

Post by wutbrodo »

belorn wrote: post #9
codebeaker wrote: post #2

I thought the general consensus amongst people, including the general HN crowd was that it was better to allow the w3c to specify a "black box" with well defined inputs and outputs. Allowing vendors to slot in their own (probably closed source) implementation than it was to slam the door in their faces whilst screaming "SCREW YOU, USE SILVERLIGHT OR FLASH". Defective by design seems to be misinterpreting the "build t…

Silverlight and flash both work on Linux. The youtube experience is today identical on linux, android and windows. Do you think there will be a open-source alternative to each of the new closed source DRM implementations done by different sites? Welcome to the new world where depending on the number of users your system has, some websites will work and others won't. If its worth for the company to develop to your pla…

> Silverlight and flash both work on Linux.

> Welcome to the new world where depending on the number of users your system has, some websites will work and others won't. If its worth for the company to develop to your platform, you might be worthy the time. If not, well, thought luck, go out and buy a platform which is supported.

If you're implying that the world wasn't like this before, you're simply wrong. I was unable to give good faith recommendations of Linux systems to people for _years_ because Netflix wouldn't run on them, at a time when Netflix access was important to pretty much everyone I knew. This only really changed after mobile devices became ubiquitous and thus more or less obsoleted the complaint.

Holding up silverlight as an example of a closed source plug-in that works on Linux is a terrible one, given how long it took for that to be the case.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#14

Post by jasonkester »

There must be people who find this style of writing persuasive, but for me it has the opposite effect.

The tone is so aggressive and slanderous that even though I should nominally be on the side of the author, I find myself thinking "surely there is another side to this story" and come away with the feeling that I should step back and consider that maybe the other side is in fact in the right.

It's like reading angry anti-nuclear activists and (either side of) the climate change debate. Whoever wrote that angry irrational rant is surely not somebody I want to be on the same side of any issue with. Maybe I'll check out the other opinion to see if they have anybody sensible to articulate it.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#15

Post by belorn »

wutbrodo wrote: post #13
belorn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silverlight and flash both work on Linux. The youtube experience is today identical on linux, android and windows. Do you think there will be a open-source alternative to each of the new closed source DRM implementations done by different sites? Welcome to the new world where depending on the number of users your system has, some websites will work and others won't. If its worth for the company to develop to your pla…

> Silverlight and flash both work on Linux. > Welcome to the new world where depending on the number of users your system has, some websites will work and others won't. If its worth for the company to develop to your platform, you might be worthy the time. If not, well, thought luck, go out and buy a platform which is supported. If you're implying that the world wasn't like this before, you're simply wrong. I was una…

The websites that are platform depended are so few that we know the names of them, and it is currently very expensive to make platform exclusive sites. Is the case of Netflix the reason why we want more of them?

Linux has flash, it has silverlight, it has java. In the beginning they worked terrible, but thanks to the effort of open source developers, sooner or later it they got ported. When each publisher has their own DRM platform, copying the business model of the console market and earning money on the concept of exclusivity, how many open source ports do you expect to see?

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#16

Post by icebraining »

simbalion wrote: post #10

Why can't Tim Berners-Lee be fired? We build the web, not corporations. We control the web, not corporations. Let's just take the power away from them and put their egos in check.

"We" certainly don't control the web; for the most part, the organizations that develop the most influential browsers do, with some input from the W3C, which is itself controlled by its 420 members.

The population at large mostly has a say by deciding which browser they use, and as long as people use DRM-friendly browsers, DRM is what they'll get.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#18

Post by pornel »

codebeaker wrote: post #2

I thought the general consensus amongst people, including the general HN crowd was that it was better to allow the w3c to specify a "black box" with well defined inputs and outputs. Allowing vendors to slot in their own (probably closed source) implementation than it was to slam the door in their faces whilst screaming "SCREW YOU, USE SILVERLIGHT OR FLASH". Defective by design seems to be misinterpreting the "build t…

> it was better to allow the w3c to specify a "black box" with well defined inputs and outputs.

But they didn't! EME is a spec for only for inputs, and no outputs.

EME entirely depends on CDMs, and their interface is deliberately left completely undefined (W3C uses that as an excuse to say they didn't—strictly speaking—define a DRM).

Plug-ins at least had an open NPAPI interface that anybody could integrate with. CDMs don't have any public interface. The spec allows them to be anything, including kernel modules or hardware (and in practice they're… plug-ins).

So now it's illegal under DMCA to write your own browser that plays EME-protected video with CDM compatible with Chrome's, Safari's or IE's.

It's a loss of freedom, and no DRM has been removed or even relaxed in the process.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#19

Post by pornel »

timwaagh wrote: post #12

I'd like it if this happened. if the web has some standard way to ensure DRM that means it will be possible to sell media (and hopefully possibly software) on the web without requiring people to be online at all times. It would be even better if the entire thing was managed by the w3c, not just the endpoints. that way everyone could make use of it. I do not think everything should be free although it's good if there…

It would be nice, but EME doesn't do that.

EME doesn't define the critical CDM component required for it to actually work. It's like a spec for `` tag saying it defines Flash.

So in practice you still have to license CDM integration from Google (for Chrome's CDM only) and Microsoft (for IE's CDM only) and Apple (for Safari's CDM only) and Adobe (for Firefox's CDM only).

Post reply on HN