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

251–260 of 314 posts

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

#251

Post by keeperofdakeys »

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #163
mcherm wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla (makers of Firefox) campaigned strongly against this in the W3C. But they haven't promised never to support DRM in their browser, and they are not likely to as it would marginalize their browser. What is more likely to happen is that they won't be able to pay the licensing fees for the DRM software and therefore won't include it, and then their browser will become marginalized. ("Firefox: the browser that can…

For a preview of how this approach would turn out for Mozilla, look at the H.264/WebM debacle. Mozilla refused to implement H.264 for a long time, but after Google reneged on its promise to drop support, Mozilla finally caved to keep its userbase. I doubt they'd even try again, seeing as they've already seen this movie and know how it will end.

The main reason Mozilla didn't add H264 was because of royalties, which they couldn't pay. I don't know how much ideology was also behind the decision. Their solution was to use the OS to decode H.264, bypassing the need to implement the codec, and pay royalties. So I'm not sure how much of it was "caving", and how much was finally implementing the solution.

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

#252

Post by alextingle »

jcromartie wrote: post #235
PeterisP wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if the content keys work with actual open source software, then that software can always be modified to decode the content and remove any restrictions that the publisher might wish to apply.

That's why they have to obfuscate things at the code level too.

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

#254

Post by ctiothy »

snowwrestler wrote: post #230
maggit wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think DRM has worked up to now? Which content is unavailable for pirating because of DRM? As far as I can tell DRM has only ever punished, and still only punishes, legitimate users.

It only punishes users if it is badly implemented. I doubt many users of Steam or Netflix feel punished.

I can't watch my Netflix account on Linux without using some Wine distribution because of the Silverlight DRM. I'd say I feel pretty punished on that end.

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

#255

Post by nileshtrivedi »

snowwrestler wrote: post #229
bzbarsky wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that of the four major browser vendors (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Google) three are also major DRM vendors (Google's Widevine, Microsoft's PlayReady, and Apple's FairPlay). What exactly do you think will prevent them from building their already-existing in-house DRM (three different systems, note!) into their own browsers?

I guess I don't understand what the problem with that would be. Would that somehow lead to Hacker News or Facebook encrypting their site's source code with that DRM? I sort of doubt it. They could do that now with Flash if they wanted to, but no one thinks Flash websites are a good idea.

The problem is that free and open-source browsers will not be able to show more and more content on the web. That is already true but it was not encouraged or endorsed by W3C so far. That has changed.

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

#256

Post by camus »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #208
nitrogen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

TCP/IP is an open standard, DRM are not.

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

#257

Post by nitrogen »

revelation wrote: post #240
nitrogen wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing in the W3C's DRM spec provides for anything better than a closed hardware chip.

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

#258

Post by bzbarsky »

snowwrestler wrote: post #229
bzbarsky wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that of the four major browser vendors (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Google) three are also major DRM vendors (Google's Widevine, Microsoft's PlayReady, and Apple's FairPlay). What exactly do you think will prevent them from building their already-existing in-house DRM (three different systems, note!) into their own browsers?

I guess I don't understand what the problem with that would be. Would that somehow lead to Hacker News or Facebook encrypting their site's source code with that DRM? I sort of doubt it. They could do that now with Flash if they wanted to, but no one thinks Flash websites are a good idea.

The main possible problems are twofold:

1) EME as currently proposed is video only, but will the W3C try to do the same for images? For text? There are certainly constituencies who would live simple turnkey DRM for those on the web. And they don't do it in Flash _precisely_ because Flash websites are not a good idea.

2) If the above happens, there is no incentive for Netflix, say, to try come up with a setup that works with open-source browsers and still satisfies the rightsholders for the content they distribute. If people complain they'll just be told the spec says browsers need to implement DRM, and if that means no open-source browsers tough luck.

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

#259

Post by duncan_bayne »

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…

> 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."

That's entirely reasonable. Silo'd 'app stores' are where things like DRM belong, not the World Wide Web.

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

#260

Post by tzs »

Actually, they are green-lighting EME, not DRM. EME can be used as part of a DRM system, but it has other possible uses. For instance, one could build a nice system around it to allow a group of friends or family to share private encrypted movies or images.
Post reply on HN