W3C - Ruining HTML since... often...
W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
31–40 of 314 posts
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#32Isn't this good news for video distributors who haven't converted over to HTML5 (native video support) because of lack of support for DRM?
Sure, but is it good news for the users?
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#33The 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…
> It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable. I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does n…
The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web, a system for disseminating information publicly and globally to all those who may benefit from it. By standardizing DRM for video, they are giving legitimacy to a technical kludge that is designed specifically to prevent the dissemination of information. There are legitimate reasons why someone may wish to save a video to their hard drive, just like they can save an image today. There is no reason the web should be built upon mechanisms designed specifically to privilege corporate interests over the interests of those falling under fair use exemptions to copyright laws.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
DRM is not in the browser. The browser just acts as a gateway to allow the website to talk to a DRM component in the OS (or potentially in hardware).
So at some point in the transaction you have to click "Allow" and install this component, similar to how a java applet works now?
No, the DRM is built into the operating system or the browser. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have their own DRM schemes. There is no installation.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#35The 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…
That would be the dystopian outcome if the sites and browsers together diverged from open standards and started forcing DRM on everyone.
What this standard actually specifies however, is only that the browser will respond to a certain tag by looking for some proprietary-ware to play whatever audio and/or video someone wants to restrict.
This is a disappointing move on the part of w3c, because it lends some air of legitimacy to DRM, and because it revives the otherwise dying plugin system under a new name. But it doesn't actually force DRM on anyone or restrict the ability to do anything on the web.
The best case would be that users are unwilling to install the black-box-ware in order to see videos or whatever, and the feature is little used and the copyright exploiters have to either unlock the content or go away with it. None of which would be bad.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#36The 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…
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?
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 all.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#37Can 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 now they do, in the open source browsers.
But PLEASE enlighten me. I wants to know.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#38The 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…
This is a bit of an exaggeration, we have had content like this on the web for years with proprietary technologies like flash, silverlight ,activeX and highly obfuscated JS. Not to mention the amount of content locked into walled gardens and proprietary app stores etc.
The W3 proposals suggested do not in fact mandate browser vendors implement any DRM scheme to remain 100% standards compliant. This is myth that gets repeated on HN surprisingly often.
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.
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 not already.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#39The 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…
This news makes me so sad. Also: The more things progress, the more and more sense RMS makes.
I wish I could upvote more than once.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#40The 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…
> It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable. I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does n…
It matters because of two things:
1 - We'll lose the W3C. We'll have to either create another standards body, or go back to the 90's situation when nobody agreed on anything.
2 - There are a few places where actualy reading the data somebody sent to you is a crime. Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them, at least for now. If you create a code for "don't read this data" to be sent over the web, disobeying it will become a crime there.