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

231–240 of 314 posts

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

#231

Post by snowwrestler »

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?

How is the EME slope any more slippy than it is right now with Flash or Silverlight? Both allow sites to serve code in an obscured and non-open way. And yet no one serves a Flash-only or Silverlight-only site.

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

#232

Post by wildfire »

thrillgore wrote: post #99
hayksaakian wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And I seriously doubt with EME that it will change this way. I work for a media company, Flash is used not just for its DRM but because our ad vendors don't care about HTML5 support. It's why we can't move forward with HTML5 outside of mobile.

You do realise that 'mobile' now accounts for > 50% of pageviews?

Which means that your ad vendors actually about HTML5 support. They just do not know it yet.

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

#234

Post by schoen »

makomk wrote: post #184
schoen wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. In previous discussions about this, some people emphasized the idea of open source development, as opposed to giving an open source software to an end user. For example, you could run a binary through an obfuscator after compiling in a decryption key -- from source code that had been published and distributed under an open source license. If the license isn't a reciprocal/copyleft license, this is probably n…

> For example, you could run a binary through an obfuscator after compiling in a decryption key -- from source code that had been published and distributed under an open source license. Of course, if you do that you may as well just not release the source code at all, because there's no way for the user to tell that the binary does actually correspond to the source without also being able to extract the encryption ke…

I think that verifiability is an important security benefit from publishing source code and I hope to talk more about that soon.

Some people think that publishing source code is first and foremost a way to get other people to collaborate on its development, not to ensure any particular rights or knowledge or safety for people who end up using the software. For example, you could imagine a consortium of people who each make a super-proprietary locked-down thing and they publish and collaborate on the code of some libraries that their respective locked-down things need. They actively do want other locked-down thing makers to comment on how to make the code better and contribute patches, but they actively don't want customers to use that knowledge to make the thing less locked-down (or to be able to verify what it does or doesn't do).

This is a situation that we often encounter in the real world, and in fact some of the locked-down thing makers are even surprised when people say the contrast in their behavior with respect to these audiences is strange or hypocritical, because they didn't know or didn't remember that other people think software freedom is partly or mainly meant to benefit users.

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

#235

Post by jcromartie »

PeterisP wrote: post #133
schoen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Content keys do not have to be shipped with the browser. They are provisioned on a per-user and possibly even per-use basis for the specific content.

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

#236

Post by camus »

wildster wrote: post #182

If this means companies like Netflix use HTML5 rather than Silverlight to stream films it will ultimately make the world a better place.

makes no difference , you'll still need to install some 3rd party plugin or buy authorized hardware in order to run the media.

Doesnt change anything for the client.

The providers will swap an object tag for a video one ,that's what it is all about.

It's basically a Flash or Silverlight for video and sound only.

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

#237

Post by davexunit »

oonny wrote: post #68
davexunit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And terrible news for all users.

how so? I really don't get it. how is moving from a plugin (flash/sliverlight) to html5 a bad thing as long as you can protect your content?

Because I think "protect" is propaganda in this context. Digital restrictions management is harmful to users.

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

#238

Post by diminoten »

makomk wrote: post #134
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.

That's just not true, for exactly the example provided above.

It'd make no sense to let people roll their own browsers that circumvent DRM.

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

#239

Post by FLUX-YOU »

angrow wrote: post #118
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.

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?

I think you're proposing dire consequences where there aren't likely to be any.

Google copying Yahoo's front page code? Okay, that'll be in the news and everyone will have a good laugh.

Some Joe Schmoe Web Developer lifting CSS/HTML from an unknown client to sell to an unknown client? Eh, not so much. This probably happens often and goes undetected.

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

#240

Post by revelation »

nitrogen wrote: post #201
debacle wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An extra hardware chip is a closed system. You control all the input that comes in. It is just a more annoying form of obfuscation at that point.
Post reply on HN