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

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

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 314 posts

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

#131

Post by asadotzler »

jonahx wrote: post #65
jiggy2011 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of an exaggeration, we have had content like this on the web for years with proprietary technologies like flash, silverlight ,activeX and highly obfuscated JS. Not to mention the amount of content locked into walled gardens and proprietary app stores etc. The W3 proposals suggested do not in fact mandate browser vendors implement any DRM scheme to remain 100% standards compliant. This is myth that gets…

> The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details. Sure, but we don't have to aid them in their quest > The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is…

"As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive."

And the businesses (Hollywood) with the content that Web users want have done that math and decided that DRM through plug-ins and native apps is an EXCELLENT system and they're happy to keep mandating it forever. If Plug-ins go away, as they're slowly but surely doing, then native apps will be the only place to get this content.

Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work."

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

#132

Post by schoen »

1qaz2wsx3edc wrote: post #123

I wish a browser vendor would step up and say no to this. As in "we won't support a DRM future in the browser". Firefox, Chrome?

Chrome might be difficult because Google has already implemented it in ChromeOS and is a coauthor of the EME specification.

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

#133

Post by PeterisP »

schoen wrote: post #51
tikhonj wrote: post #2

How will this work with open-source browsers like Firefox? After all, what's to stop somebody from publishing an extension or even a modified version of the browser itself? DRM seems fundamentally unenforceable, after all. Are the people pushing for this hoping it's just too much hassle? These questions aren't rhetorical: I'm interested in what exactly the DRM people are pushing and how they expect it to work. Just n…

In most DRM systems the information is distributed encrypted. The decryption keys are given to technology developers who have specifically promised to obey the DRM rules, as well as to make their technology hard for users to understand or modify so that the users can't easily undo the restrictions or extract the decryption keys. Hence a browser developer or OS developer or developer of whatever software is in questio…

I see no way how an open source system can implement any effective DRM standard while staying open source.

If a proper open source system has a component that enforces DRM, and is functional when I download it, then it includes those keys; but gives me an unconditional right to use and modify it. And I am physically able to modify it, un-implementing those restrictions.

If part of the system cannot be modified by me, then the whole is not open source, and any open source system such as Firefox shouldn't include that part or standard.

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

#134

Post by makomk »

x0054 wrote: post #112

Ok, it sounds to me like this is way, way, over blown. First, the DRM is NOT going to be built into the browser it self. It's basically a new name for a plug in system, nothing more. So, to everyone who thinks they can roll their own browser and avoid the DRM, no you will not be able to. It's not bad or good for consumers, at best, it's about the same. It's very simple, studios will not allow you to rent their movies…

No, the DRM is going to be built into the browser itself. Browser vendors could in theory implement it as a plugin but they don't seem to be planning to and the W3C doesn't specify any kind of plugin mechanism. IE11 at least integrates it into the browser executable.

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

#135

Post by chris_mahan »

schoen wrote: post #51
tikhonj wrote: post #2

How will this work with open-source browsers like Firefox? After all, what's to stop somebody from publishing an extension or even a modified version of the browser itself? DRM seems fundamentally unenforceable, after all. Are the people pushing for this hoping it's just too much hassle? These questions aren't rhetorical: I'm interested in what exactly the DRM people are pushing and how they expect it to work. Just n…

In most DRM systems the information is distributed encrypted. The decryption keys are given to technology developers who have specifically promised to obey the DRM rules, as well as to make their technology hard for users to understand or modify so that the users can't easily undo the restrictions or extract the decryption keys. Hence a browser developer or OS developer or developer of whatever software is in questio…

Does it mean that Firefox could not both implement DRM and remain open source?

Excellent!

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

#136

Post by revelation »

debacle wrote: post #124
revelation wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's open source, I can just swoop in, inject some code and make a copy of the decrypted data stream for 'archival purposes'. Won't take a day for a PoC. I can still do this with closed source DRM blobs, but it will take much longer. And there will probably be pointless anti-debugger tricks, system wide hooks that break countless other software, kernel drivers that BSoD your system.. That is precisely why this pro…

But you can do that with any DRM - the unencrypted stream will always be in memory at some point.

Yes, that is my point. That is why any DRM plugin will be closed-source and probably filled with landmines and obfuscation: its the only sliver of a chance they have to make getting the unencrypted data hard.

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

#137

Post by jonahx »

asadotzler wrote: post #131
jonahx wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details. Sure, but we don't have to aid them in their quest > The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is…

"As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive." And the businesses (Hollywood) with the content that Web users want have done that math and decided that DRM through plug-ins and native apps is an EXCELLENT system and they're happy to keep mandating it forever. If Plug…

> Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work."

I don't cringe at that, it's just the way it is. But I promise you no-install browser delivery of DRM'd content which "just works" is very valuable to those businesses. People grab the thing within arm's reach. Sure, if there isn't anything in arm's reach a decent amount of them will still walk across the room for what they want, but I think that's besides the point.

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

#138

Post by PeterisP »

ferongr wrote: post #73
AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take for example a DRM protected video. That video is being send to the framebuffer of my video card. If I use an open source OS and open source Browser, what on earth is stopping me from capturing that video output?

Open source OSes will probably not have CDMs available, except when prepackaged into a proprietary widget (Android, ChromeOS, B2G is Mozilla decides to play ball)

If an open source system can run the CDM and is packaged in a proprietary widget; then I am allowed to take that open source system out of the widget, modify it to behave exactly as if it is still in the widget (so that it can still run the CDM) and redistribute the system to everyone.

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

#139

Post by asadotzler »

fafner wrote: post #12
tikhonj wrote: post #2

How will this work with open-source browsers like Firefox? After all, what's to stop somebody from publishing an extension or even a modified version of the browser itself? DRM seems fundamentally unenforceable, after all. Are the people pushing for this hoping it's just too much hassle? These questions aren't rhetorical: I'm interested in what exactly the DRM people are pushing and how they expect it to work. Just n…

They want to propose an API which would allow proprietary closed source binary blobs to display videos. In other words: They are pushing "yet another Flash" into HTML5.

A "Flash" without the (in)security footprint of an entire runtime duplicating Web standards, I think you mean.

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

#140

Post by makomk »

frozenport wrote: post #74
AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's encrypted all the way to the hardware, then it get's a bit more believable. But that really can't be done on the web, can it? "You no have DRM chip? No tubez for you!"

1. Your cellphone can't watch YouTube without hardware decoding. 2. An issue closer to home can be seen http://wiki.xbmc.org/?title=Raspberry_Pi/FAQ#Video_and_audio... . 3. Companies target audiences and not platforms. For example, Netflix on Linux.

Come to think of it, in theory the Raspberry Pi could support a DRM scheme that's entirely "open source" in the same way that their graphics drivers are already. Basically, the GPU is actually a fairly powerful processor running a binary blob that receives messages from the ARM CPU - if it did all the decryption the CPU-side code could be entirely open.
Post reply on HN