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

201–210 of 314 posts

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

#201

Post by nitrogen »

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.

Not if the decryption is handled by hardware that refuses to give an unencrypted video stream back to the CPU.

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

#202

Post by fafner »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #191
makomk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 combinati…

That won't work. If the restrictions module simply hands back the decrypted data then you could just change the browser to dump the data on your disk.

The only way it will work is if the restrictions module handles everything from decryption, decoding, to rendering. Probably even using a hardware DRM scheme and preventing any interaction of the video data with the JavaScript or any other website elements.

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

#203

Post by waqf »

wdewind wrote: post #120
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. Excellent news! So it's ok if I copy the images, CSS and HTML on your landing page for your employer for my competitor, then? Edit: I'm obviously not serious.

It's not my company, and the things I'm saying don't represent the opinions of my employer. To your question, is it "ok," I couldn't provide the answer as I don't own the copyright. My statement was that I wish we lived in a world without copyright. The rules would be very different, and thus we would act and compete differently. As is, brand is an important asset for a company. I think you know all this. I also thin…

What do brands have to do with copyright law?

Or are you also advocating for changes to trademark law?

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

#204

Post by mmcclure »

josteink wrote: post #142
mmcclure wrote: post #111

I don't mean this as a defense of EME, but I think this is more rabble-rousing and fear mongering than anything else. What the EFF and this article are saying is that EME opens the door for this kind of stuff to make its way to the spec. EME on its own does absolutely none of this. EME is not DRM. It's a standard spec for plugins that provide DRM. Essentially it means that someone like Netflix could still use the HTM…

It's DRM legitimised as a concept in a supposedly open standard. it's a slippery slope. with video DRM having a foot inside, who dares to venture a guess at what the next victim will be? DRMed js? DRMed html?

I totally understand what you're saying (and agree), my point was that a lot of people posting here seem to think that all of these scary "nexts" are what was approved by the W3C.

Yes, it would be a travesty if those things actually happened. Yes, I think DRM is ultimately pointless and silly. Keep in mind, though, that this is just a transition from one method of DRM playback to another, not a leap to DRM for things that didn't previously have it.

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

#205

Post by smosher »

maxerickson wrote: post #146
jimktrains2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but is it good news for the users?

Yeah, sure. Some sort of somewhat effective anti digital copying mechanism is a great way to enable video rentals on general purpose computers (especially given the pervasive copyright regime of modern video content). There are issues to come when consumers only have access to encumbered media, but at the moment, they pretty clearly benefit from the access.

> they pretty clearly benefit from the access

Speaking of access, make sure you have the SonyⓇ RootKit™ Updater installed.

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

#206

Post by jiggy2011 »

toyg wrote: post #190
jiggy2011 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all, there is nothing in the spec that mandates the use of any particular OS.

But there's nothing compelling plugin developers to support all OS/browser combinations, so no, in practice it likely won't be OS-agnostic. This scheme basically just creates a special class of plugins; these plugins clearly won't be OS-agnostic, because they can't -- that's the whole point of the exercise: to restrict playback to devices that are fully authorised/controlled from top to bottom, with the browser pipin…

Isn't this the same with all software? There is never anything mandating that anybody supports your OS or browser of choice.

If I want to watch netflix or play GTA5 on my haiku box I'm SOL as it is unless there is a business case to be made for doing the port.

This actually makes things easier. For example netflix currently uses silverlight for their streaming, this means that in order to watch netflix you need something that supports the entire silverlight stack.

With this proposal all you need is modern browser and a compatible CDM which is a much smaller chunk of code.

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

#207

Post by azakai »

marcosdumay wrote: post #45
Supermighty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the WHATWG's position on this? They represent the browser makers. If they support DRM then it's game over. Another break-away standards group won't be able to do anything to sway the browser makers. What could they do?

Most browsers are free software nowadays. Their makers opinion is important (yeah, forking is hard work), but not that much.

EME is driven by two browser vendors, Google and Microsoft, in partnership with Netflix. See Editors section of the spec,

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

Chrome and IE are the ones pushing this - so yes, the opinion of browser makers matter, but sadly the 2 biggest ones, Google and Microsoft, do not just support EME but are the ones driving it.

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

#208

Post by jiggy2011 »

nitrogen wrote: post #187
jiggy2011 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all, there is nothing in the spec that mandates the use of any particular OS.

Is there anything in the spec that ensures compatibility with more than one OS?

Is there anything in the TCP/IP spec that ensures compatibility with more than one OS?

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

#209

Post by tesseractive »

perrupa wrote: post #127
angrow wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't recommend it: the name and logo are trademarked, and even if you replaced those, if anyone noticed the rest of the copying, you'd be the laughingstock of the internet. Who'd want to buy your product then?

Zynga doesn't particularly seem to care about that kind of thing and they're doing pretty ok...

They are?

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

#210

Post by jellicle »

AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #37

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 analog hole will always exist. But please understand: it's ANALOG hole.

Ten years from now (I know it will happen by then; probably sooner), if I grab my Apple smartphone and press "record video" and point it at a piece of DRM-protected content playing on my computer, it will not record. Will not record. There will just be a black spot in your recording. The recording audio will cut out as well, if an audio watermark is detected.

It's an ANALOG hole. Film cameras will always be able to record your screen. Cassette recorders will work fine. But your digital equipment? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

Post reply on HN