Live data from Hacker News

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

boingboing.net

291–300 of 314 posts

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

#291

I don't get it. If they want a plugin, they should build a plugin. Why would any sane person (1) create redundant infrastructure for DRM plugins (2) get all the same security problems and more just because some hipsters at Netflix get a hardon when they can't use HTML5 video tags and have to embed a plugin? We certainly shouldn't offload Netflixs woes with content producers onto every browser maker in existence. What…

Should have been laughed out from the first proposal.

And yet it wasn't. Can certainly make you wonder about the health of the W3C as a whole.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah well your use case doesn't fit the "many" qualifier that was mentioned in the comment you replied to.

I disagree. Even though Linux desktop usage isn't a huge percentage (~1%?), I would consider 1% of millions "many".

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

#294
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…

If you read the spec: "The Content Decryption Module (CDM) is a generic term for a part of or add-on to the user agent that provides functionality for one or more Key Systems. Implementations may or may not separate the implementations of CDMs and may or may not treat them as separate from the user agent."

So the CDM isn't necessarily seperate from the browser itself - that's left totally as an implementation decision, and at least one widespread implementation (IE11) is integrating the CDM tightly into the browser. Also, even if the CDM is seperate it can render frames directly to the screen without passing through the browser. In particular, note that:

"Where media rendering is not performed by the UA, for example in the case of a hardware protected media pipeline, then the full set of HTML rendering capabilities, for example CSS Transforms, may not be available. One likely restriction is that video media may be constrained to appear only in rectangular regions with sides parallel to the edges of the window and with normal orientation."

So basically, just like with existing plugins, encrypted content is an opaque rectangle plonked on top of the web page that's not part of the browser's normal rendering pathway.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is that if these companies want so desperately to enforce DRM, why are they using the web? A native application is better suited to what they want to do, and they are going to end up writing DRM modules in native code anyway. So why are they targeting the web at all, and why do they insist on getting something that is fundamentally closed (DRM) put into something that was meant to be open (HTM…

Content providers want to be on the web, because that's where the audience is. If they're made to feel unwelcome on the web, they certainly will take their content away. This makes the web less useful and harms users.

The web has had copies of that content well before the "content providers" even had a website, and it'll have copies of the content well after they decide to leave.

All they can take away is the sources that actually bring them money.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I'm conflating the two. I mean to be saying intellectual property law in general, which I am not a huge fan of.

If you're against "intellectual property" then you shouldn't use that propaganda term. Refer to the specific legal protections at issue, like copyright, patents, or trademarks, because they are all have very different functions and purposes. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

That's an interesting piece, thanks for sharing. I think from the perspective of "what existing pieces of culture can I use to create something new" IP is actually a useful bucket. From the perspective of people who have already created or are consuming that piece of culture, I agree that combining trademark with copyright and patents is not useful.

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

#297
post #3

The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]: "A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's…

We've already got Silverlight, Flash, Java, so on and so forth... denying DRM entry to HTML won't stop DRM web content, and allowing it might just make the experience less miserable.

It will make it more miserable, because EME is not a standard DRM, it's a plug-in interface for launching browser-specific/vendor-specific DRM plug-ins. DRM plug-ins are allowed to do whatever they want, and proponents at W3C want to completely bypass the browser and have DRM all the way from TPM to HDCP.

Makers of Flash and Silverlight were a 3rd party in the DRM battle. They had to worry about their plugins' marketshare and could not implement too user-hostile DRM. They had to balance pleasing media corporations and users.

Now there won't be anything stopping MPAA's CEOs wet dreams running in your OS's kernel. Media corps have Netflix and Google (Play Store) in their pockets and can force them to ship all kinds of nastiness — under W3C's brand name.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least Sliverlight works in Linux with netflix-desktop.

That stopped working for me several months ago... IIRC Netflix needed an updated version of Silverlight. Have they patched it?

Yeah, still works for me. It was only gone for a few days IIRC.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah well your use case doesn't fit the "many" qualifier that was mentioned in the comment you replied to.

I disagree. Even though Linux desktop usage isn't a huge percentage (~1%?), I would consider 1% of millions "many".

I would consider many to be a worthless weasel word, that tells us nothing other than more than one but less than even a significant minority.

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

#300
I refuse to engage in blind trust, either that content will remain available (including that of historical or functional significance) or that -- encased in an opaque block -- it will be safely and fairly delivered.

DRM is a non-starter, for me. Keep your shit out of my peanut butter.

Post reply on HN