Live data from Hacker News

W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

boingboing.net

101–110 of 314 posts

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you want DRM, you use a plug-in or a separate application. There's no reason that an app like Netflix or whatever can't use pure-HTML for everything but the video-stream and use a plug-in based object for the stream. That's exactly what this standard would allow.

That's how it is now without a standard. We don't need a standard for stupid anti-UX features like built in DRM

We already have a standard for stupid anti-UX features built in. It's called NPAPI.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#102
post #64

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? Right now we have Flash and Silverlight everywhere and it's a PITA. How open are those two? This adds the option of moving this stuff out of plugins. If you want to live in some…

There's a difference between a closed plugin and a closed browser. Let the DRM content stay in their plugins in their paywalled sites, while the web in general remains open and benefits from the creativity and innovation that flows from that openness.

I don't think anyone said that the DRM code will be closed source.

You don't complain when you can't decrypt PGP, even though PGP implementations are open source. This is the same thing.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#103
post #34
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So at some point in the transaction you have to click "Allow" and install this component, similar to how a java applet works now?

No, the DRM is built into the operating system or the browser. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have their own DRM schemes. There is no installation.

This is incorrect. The DRM may be shipped with the browser or whatnot, but it's fundamentally a plugin architecture. The Widevine plugin, for example, is the CDM plugin used by both Google Play and Netflix to provide DRM-protected video on Android and ChromeOS.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#104

I think that many people are drastically underestimating the effect this may have on the open web. The response "oh, well we'll just build a browser that will avoid the DRM" isn't going to work quite as well as one might hope. It's not such a stretch of the imagination that content providers will detect such browsers and refuse to supply any content at all. This would be similar to what many sites do now for users of…

Impossible, browser detection is easily spoofed. Some browsers come built with the ability to spoof other browsers since its valuable for developers who need to test how their sites appear in other browsers.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#105
post #64

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? Right now we have Flash and Silverlight everywhere and it's a PITA. How open are those two? This adds the option of moving this stuff out of plugins. If you want to live in some…

"Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM" Why should we care? The web is not supposed to restrict users. If Universal does not like it, they can go somewhere else -- they have the cable TV system with all its restrictions and anti-freedom design.

No, the web is all about restricting users. It's baked into several HTTP error codes (403 and 401 off the top of my head). SSL is also rather popular.

I assume you mean that the browser shouldn't restrict users? Like, if I stream a movie from Netflix, I should be able to also save it locally so I can take parts of it to use in my fair use arts project? Sorry. Never going to happen. Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free".

That's like selling a Roku box that can only play Ted and Youtube videos and saying that it's better because it's totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users. Well, sure, that is the best kind of correct. But only because you yanked everything that wasn't free. You didn't actually add any value over the standard Roku box that plays Netflix and Amazon.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#108
This is poison and against everything the W3C is set to do according to their own mission statement.

Everything we've spent the last 20 years building and standardising. Now ruined. Tainted.

They have now lost all legitimacy among anyone who calls themselves a proponent of the open web. We need a new leadership as the old one can't be trusted. We need an open web action group to start over.

Thanks for fragmenting the web, W3C. Thanks for nothing, assholes.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#109
post #64

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? Right now we have Flash and Silverlight everywhere and it's a PITA. How open are those two? This adds the option of moving this stuff out of plugins. If you want to live in some…

I don't believe that. Music industry said the same thing, no one supported DRM and now music is DRM free. It was only a matter time before Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu went DRM free.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#110

Can someone PLEASE explain to me the following: If my computer is playing the video and playing the audio. How on God's green earth can they stop me from capturing that? ... It's playing right in front of me... I can hear and see it. It's not hidden or secret. Look. If you ask me, the only reason DRM has worked up to now, is because code/file formats/protocols were secret. People didn't have access to the source. But…

The parts of the browsers that support the DRM would probably have to be delivered as binary blobs in order to be standards compliant.
Post reply on HN