BBC demands DRM for HTML5 • Hacker News Board

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#121

Post by comex » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 6:41 PM UTC

trunnell wrote: post #86

Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... as are some of the comments in this thread. Let's start with the facts. Here's the spec. It's called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... The EME spec isn't that long, and the introduction has a nice diagram. Go check it out. The W3C spec does not put "DRM in browsers." It allows browsers to use "decryption mod…

Simple question:

Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay?

I don't think it has any chance - DRM on PCs is always pretty quickly bypassed - which is why it frustrates me so: it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately, or Mac users from AirPlaying content to their TVs, with no actual benefit against piracy. At least where it pertains to high value content, it is little but a lie mutually agreed upon with rightsholders. :(

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#122

Post by jedberg » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:03 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #121

trunnell wrote: post #86

Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... as are some of the comments in this thread. Let's start with the facts. Here's the spec. It's called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... The EME spec isn't that long, and the introduction has a nice diagram. Go check it out. The W3C spec does not put "DRM in browsers." It allows browsers to use "decryption mod…

Simple question: Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay? I don't think it has any chance - DRM on PCs is always pretty quickly bypassed - which is why it frustrates me so: it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately, or Mac users from AirPlaying content to their TVs, with no actual benefit against piracy . At least where it pert…

> Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay?

No, and that isn't the purpose. The purpose is so that Netflix can show you movies that Hollywood lawyers insist be encumbered with DRM because they won't try and understand that DRM doesn't actually do anything. Maybe one day Netflix will be big enough to push back, like Apple did with mp3 DRM, but until then, this is the only way to show premium content to people without requiring a plugin from Microsoft.

> it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately,

Actually, the inclusion of EME in HTML5 is exactly what would enable you to watch content on Linux.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#123

Post by redbad » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:04 PM UTC

Lewisham wrote: post #112

chime wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to support these extensions. The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. I fail to see the technical reason why encryption is necessary for Netflix. HTML5 is a…

> The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. And when we live in your Star Trek-style technoutopia, then we won't have to worry about business concerns in specs. Specs have had business concerns in them since... ever.

    Specs have had business concerns in them since... ever.

Good specs haven't.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#124

Post by jmodp » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:11 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #121

trunnell wrote: post #86

Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... as are some of the comments in this thread. Let's start with the facts. Here's the spec. It's called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... The EME spec isn't that long, and the introduction has a nice diagram. Go check it out. The W3C spec does not put "DRM in browsers." It allows browsers to use "decryption mod…

Simple question: Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay? I don't think it has any chance - DRM on PCs is always pretty quickly bypassed - which is why it frustrates me so: it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately, or Mac users from AirPlaying content to their TVs, with no actual benefit against piracy . At least where it pert…

Locks don't prevent cars from being stolen or homes from being robbed. Determined attackers have the advantage. The real problem with DRM is the lack of convenience and user unfriendliness. I must say, however, that the DRM in Netflix is nearly invisible except for the plugins. It looks like this proposal effectively reduces the size of the plugins required.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#125

Post by entropy_ » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:11 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #117

lucian1900 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix requires a subscription to stream. DRM is irrelevant.

Care to elucidate that point? So if netflix streamed their content with no-DRM (which none of the content companies they license from would allow, but we'll skip that fact) you assume no one would just get a subscription, copy their entire catalouge, and freely distribute it? Doesn't sound like a very sustainable business model to me...

The point is, that it is possible for someone who is technically savvy and who has a subscription to copy the streams right now. The reason they can't download the entire catalogue is probably because netflix/hulu have(or at least I hope they do) a system in place which prevents a single subscriber from accessing streams at a speed above what would be reasonably necessary for watching things one movie at a time. Which means that downloading the entire catalogue would take as long as it would take to watch everything which is probably prohibitively too much time.

However, if, say, there's a particular movie that is available on netflix/hulu which you want to distribute freely for whatever reason and you are technically savvy, no DRM(short of netflix/hulu controlling the actual hardware you're watching from) will prevent you from doing so.

Therefore, DRM offers no additional protection beyond what a regular login cookie-based system with rate limiting would offer.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#126

Post by mmastrac » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:12 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #117

lucian1900 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix requires a subscription to stream. DRM is irrelevant.

Care to elucidate that point? So if netflix streamed their content with no-DRM (which none of the content companies they license from would allow, but we'll skip that fact) you assume no one would just get a subscription, copy their entire catalouge, and freely distribute it? Doesn't sound like a very sustainable business model to me...

DRM didn't stop House of Cards from appearing on PB:

http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0

I don't see Netflix going out of business because of this.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#127

Post by jmodp » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:15 PM UTC

Gormo wrote: post #105

trunnell wrote: post #86

Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... as are some of the comments in this thread. Let's start with the facts. Here's the spec. It's called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... The EME spec isn't that long, and the introduction has a nice diagram. Go check it out. The W3C spec does not put "DRM in browsers." It allows browsers to use "decryption mod…

> If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to support these extensions. So, a plugin-free web that requires plugins?

Smaller specialized standard plugins.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#128

Post by entropy_ » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:17 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #122

comex wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple question: Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay? I don't think it has any chance - DRM on PCs is always pretty quickly bypassed - which is why it frustrates me so: it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately, or Mac users from AirPlaying content to their TVs, with no actual benefit against piracy . At least where it pert…

> Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay? No, and that isn't the purpose. The purpose is so that Netflix can show you movies that Hollywood lawyers insist be encumbered with DRM because they won't try and understand that DRM doesn't actually do anything. Maybe one day Netflix will be big enough to push back, like Apple did with mp3 DRM, but until then, this is the…

So we're including things in the HTML spec just to satisfy hollywood lawyers now? We would be saddling a spec(and any browser wishing to implement it) for what will probably be a decade and possibly more just so hollywood execs/lawyers can cover their asses and protect a dying business model which will probably be outlived by both the spec and implementing browsers.

I find that stupid, to say the least. Especially since, it is highly likely that at some point, some company will be big enough to push back and distribute things DRM-free just like Apple did with iTunes.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#129

Post by jedberg » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:22 PM UTC

entropy_ wrote: post #128

jedberg wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay? No, and that isn't the purpose. The purpose is so that Netflix can show you movies that Hollywood lawyers insist be encumbered with DRM because they won't try and understand that DRM doesn't actually do anything. Maybe one day Netflix will be big enough to push back, like Apple did with mp3 DRM, but until then, this is the…

So we're including things in the HTML spec just to satisfy hollywood lawyers now? We would be saddling a spec(and any browser wishing to implement it) for what will probably be a decade and possibly more just so hollywood execs/lawyers can cover their asses and protect a dying business model which will probably be outlived by both the spec and implementing browsers. I find that stupid, to say the least. Especially si…

But once the model dies, why does it matter if it is in the spec? If a company (say Apple) gets big enough to demand no DRM, like Apple did with music, then no one will use the standard anymore.

So why does it matter if the standard makes it easier to more widely distribute the content, which will only help in hastening its demise by allowing someone to grow big enough to push back?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#130

Post by macspoofing » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 7:28 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #18

lukifer wrote: post #5

I hate DRM too, and yet I love watching Netflix streaming. The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. The fact that DRM is always defeatable through hacks and analog loopholes doesn't matter: it just has to be good enough to deter the vast majority of users. I believe we need comprehensive IP reform across the boa…

"The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes." Yes, and if it is trivial to send photos without first developing them, the business model for Kodak will vanish! Why, if it were trivial for people to move a carriage from point A to point B, the business model for buggy whip makers might vanish! Why should we be conce…

You cannot possibly be that dense. Though copyright laws need reform, there is 0 chance of completely dismantling them. Not only because there is no political willpower to do something like this, but also because it's not the right approach, and nobody actually wants something like this - not content creators (from software shops, to musicians to music studios), and not regular consumers. Framing your discussion in that corner, makes it easy to just completely dismiss your point of view because there is little value in it.