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

191–200 of 314 posts

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

#191

Post by jiggy2011 »

makomk wrote: post #179
jiggy2011 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything it's the opposite. Defining a standard interface for content decryption allows such a system to be browser agnostic. You install a module and it works in any browser which implements the spec, whether proprietary or open source.

Unless they've changed it since I looked, the only interface the HTML5 EME specification defines is the one between the website and the browser. There is no standardized interface between browsers and DRM modules, nor is there any requirement browsers support external content decryption modules. For example, last I heard IE was only going to support a built-in implementation of Microsoft's PlayReady which isn't avail…

There's a good diagram on the w3 page. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

It looks like the idea is to implement a system where encrypted content is passed to the browser. The key is then sent through the browser to the CDM, the CDM can take the content and hand back decrypted frames.

It's entirely possible for content vendors to support multiple CDMs for different browser or OS combinations. The advantage of this is that the CDM is a smaller dependency than something like silverlight, so you can have a standard HTML5 video player interface across platforms and just swap out CDMs.

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

#192

Post by nitrogen »

asadotzler wrote: post #139
fafner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At least Flash was used widely enough that the vulnerabilities were found. EME means there are several competing vendors of proprietary DRM plugins that talk directly to video card drivers, all with unknowable security characteristics.

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

#193

Post by toyg »

pdonis wrote: post #178
cbhl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that three of the largest browser makers -- Microsoft, Apple, and Google -- all have arms that deal heavily with media companies. I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but if it's implemented reasonably (think Steam or Netflix), then many consumers are willing to deal with it. EME was what enabled Netflix on ARM-based Chromebooks, for example; and I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at…

I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all. In other words, you are willing to give up freedom to get--what, exactly? Movies? Music? Eye candy? I confess I simply can't understand this point of view. People are willing to hand over the Internet to DRM and the media corporations because they can't live without the "entertainment" that Hollywood provides? People are willing to have their computers pw…

Dude, having your computer pwned is the smallest thing people will give up for entertainment. Romans were happy to hand their Republic to an Emperor, as long as he kept the circensem coming.

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

#194

Post by cbhl »

pdonis wrote: post #178
cbhl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that three of the largest browser makers -- Microsoft, Apple, and Google -- all have arms that deal heavily with media companies. I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but if it's implemented reasonably (think Steam or Netflix), then many consumers are willing to deal with it. EME was what enabled Netflix on ARM-based Chromebooks, for example; and I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at…

I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all. In other words, you are willing to give up freedom to get--what, exactly? Movies? Music? Eye candy? I confess I simply can't understand this point of view. People are willing to hand over the Internet to DRM and the media corporations because they can't live without the "entertainment" that Hollywood provides? People are willing to have their computers pw…

I'm writing this comment from a Samsung Chromebook. When I use Chrome OS; I'm already giving up my freedom. Chromium itself is open-source, but there are tons of binary blobs on this device: the accelerated graphics driver for the Mali GPU, the ARM build of Adobe Flash, and the EME implementation that makes Netflix work on my device.

EME is not new. There are already devices shipping with implementations, like mine. If EME is standardized, what it means for me is that there's a chance that my device will work with all DRMed content I want to access, and not on a per-service basis.

We're not talking about giving "big bad media companies" full control of the Ring 0 Hypervisor; I am still perfectly capable of flipping the virtual developer switch on my device and booting a pure version of Linux at any time. If I buy a device ships like that, I hope that future me will have the good sense to return it to the store.

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

#195

Post by nitrogen »

PeterisP wrote: post #151
ferongr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hazy. If the userland (running atop of the Linux kernel) is closed source then there's few things you can do. Also, you can't just rip out binaries and redistribute them at will, EULAs usually forbid it.

As I specifically mentioned, "If an open source system can run the CDM.." - the CDMs run inside a browser, and for an open source browser such as Firefox or Chromium I definitely can modify it and redistribute the modifications; and if Firefox and Chromium can't run the CDMs, well, then they won't get used much since that's the majority of users.

CDMs will most likely communicate with closed-source hardware that implements the decryption (e.g. Blu-ray's AACS requires video card support for AES and HDCP).

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

#196

Post by nitrogen »

dubcanada wrote: post #27
jeremiep wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely there was a lot of lobbying for this to happen. People with big money but no clue about how the internet really works. I'm quite surprised to see Tim Berners-Lee approve this in fact, I wonder what made him say yes to this.

It's actually mostly Netflix wanting this. They don't want to rely on SilverLight forever.

At least Sliverlight works in Linux with netflix-desktop.

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

#197

Post by fafner »

asadotzler wrote: post #139
fafner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With the insecurity of being a closed source binary blob that has to duplicate a lot of the Web standard.

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

#198

Post by fafner »

sliverstorm wrote: post #189
fafner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 better Flash? Yes, please, and thank you.

Not a better Flash. The same crap but this time embedded in what used to be an open web standard.

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

#199

Post by toyg »

PeterisP wrote: post #147
cheald wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDM may render directly to the underlying platform; it doesn't have to pass decrypted content back to the browser for rendering. Seriously though, everyone should go just read the spec. Or at the least, take a looksee at this: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

Yes, and the underlying platform (OS) can cooperate with the browser to allow easy one-click saving of the rendered data after it's been rendered. Unless the whole stack from hardware through to the DRM plugin is locked down.

> Unless the whole stack from hardware through to the DRM plugin is locked down.

Which is why you have TPM and the various Microsoft/Apple/Google DRM schemes: Hollywood wants to lock down the full stack, and they're getting there one piece at the time.

For TPM, their enabler was Microsoft and their desire to lock down the boot process to enforce licensing. For this spec, it's Google and Netflix because they think it's the only way their media services will survive in the long run.

Insert here smart quote about expert frog-boiling.

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

#200

Post by smosher »

bcoates wrote: post #48

Here's the membership list of the W3C: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List It would be great if anyone opposed to this would contact an organization on this list, ask them why they're endorsing and funding DRM and the end of the free Web, and if not, when they will be resigning from the W3C. Every name you can get stricken from the list is up to around $70,000 per year defunded from what is now most effective dr…

How do you think Sony and the EFF will respond?
Post reply on HN