BBC demands DRM for HTML5 • Hacker News Board

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#41

Post by Udo » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 2:48 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #36

Udo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil. The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only be consumed by, say, the Apple app store. That's also the reason why this will n…

this push requires converting the web into a closed platform How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.

Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are all open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. The whole thing is just not designed to disobey the user. Keep in mind that this would have to cover the entire chain, from the network connection all the way up to the screen you are allowed to play the content on.

For that kind of DRM to work, your browser would have to be turned into a black box that is difficult to inspect, designed to be controlled entirely from remote, and illegal to alter.

If this series of events were to unfold, closing the browser would not be done to benefit the content industry directly. They don't need that to deliver content, because they can always just put out an app and pump out their stuff that way. They can also just make a plugin if they want to deliver video content through the browser - which would possible with current technology today. That's not why they are proposing this. Instead this move would serve solely to restrict user freedom to use anything but approved apps for approved content.

So to make it clear why this outrage exists: there is absolutely no technical need to include this natively in HTML5. The proposal does not aim to give something to the content industry, it is instead designed to take something away from everybody else. That's not a subtle difference. But, as I said earlier, it's doubtful it will/could play out this way. The only way to achieve this "dream" is by making the web as it exists today illegal to use, and then enforce that ban through extensive ISP surveillance. In which case a DRM solution for HTML5 wouldn't matter anyway.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#42

Post by ferongr » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 2:49 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #36

Udo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil. The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only be consumed by, say, the Apple app store. That's also the reason why this will n…

this push requires converting the web into a closed platform How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.

The current DRM proposal [1] requires specific platform-specific CDMs (content decryption modules) that are not prart of the the browser. Those can be anything, from an open source module with cross-platform support to (most likely) a closed-source binary distributed by the OS and not available for use by specific browsers.

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

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#43

Post by estel » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 2:49 PM UTC

doctorfoo wrote: post #35

cmircea wrote: post #23

I would like to know how they plan to get Firefox and Chrome to support that. As free software, adding such functionality would be moot, as it can be trivially by-passed. Or do they want to ignore about 80% of Internet users?

I can see the future: a BBC iPlayer which only supports a few specific web browsers. And the masses will happily "upgrade". All PC manufacturers will ship browsers that support DRM out of the box. (The users want their software to Just Work, after all).

iPlayer already only supports a few specific web browsers that have particular proprietary plugins installed.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#44

Post by spo81rty » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 2:53 PM UTC

We need a standard for DRM for Netflix, Hulu, etc. Otherwise they will forever use Flash or Silverlight. How can anyone argue against it? Content providers must protect their content from being stolen. Do you want to make an app and everyone steals it and doesn't pay for it? Probably not.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#45

Post by justincormack » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

samarudge wrote: post #3

First you have to understand that not all of the content broadcast on the BBC is created by the BBC. They carry programs made by independent, limited, for-profit studios. They also regularly carry movies. All of which they put up on their iPlayer service. As an example, you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC iPlayer ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gd77z/Madagascar/ ). While there is an…

It is not at all the case that every film they show that they do not make is on iplayer. Most films are not. Most the content they make is on iplayer, but not all content they don't make. Not all content is even available in the live streams, eg sport which has other rights.

I would be happy for only BBC-commissioned content to be available without DRM and the rest to be not available or use plugins. Or indeed I would be happy for the BBC to not broadcast the output of Hollywood etc which is easily available elsewhere commercially eg on Netflix or Sky. I do not think that showing "Madagascar" is really a public service...

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#46

Post by noahl » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 3:01 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #39

betterunix wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if media companies think this sort of solution is necessary, we should meet them half-way." Or we could not meet them half-way and remind them that they do not own the web and that their business model is as out of date as Kodak. Why should we accept any more attacks on the freedom and openness of the web or the greater Internet? This companies are the ones who need to change: they need to adapt their businesses to…

> they need to adapt their businesses to the realities of this century's technology. You say this like it's immensely easy. So say you're head of HBO's original programming dept. It can cost over 100 million dollars to produce one season of a quality show. You can only release it on a medium that allows it to be continuously and freely distributed. How do you make money? Ads and Product placement is about it. You rea…

Actually, this is about how music works nowadays. You can download DRM-free files for a small fee. It would be technically easy to redistribute them, but people still buy lots of music. Why is that?

I think it's because people are making a price-convenience tradeoff. Music companies can affect both sides of that: keeping the price low will make people want to buy, but they can also sue distribution sites to make it less convenient to get music illegally, thus raising the price that people are willing to pay before they seek out illegal music.

To a certain extent, DRM aims for the same model - it doesn't make it impossible to redistribute videos, it just raises the difficulty, and thus raises the price that people are willing to pay before they go find illegal videos. But is it necessary to use DRM for that, or would going after distribution sites be enough?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#47

Post by onemorepassword » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 3:03 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #36

Udo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil. The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only be consumed by, say, the Apple app store. That's also the reason why this will n…

this push requires converting the web into a closed platform How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.

Today, you can build a browser that can render all content on the web that adheres to the open standards.

With DRM built in, you can adhere to the standards all you want, you still can't render all the content unless have access to the secret keys, which can only be granted to you by the powers-that-be.

The only viable client-software will be that controlled by a few major companies in cahoots with the content-industry, and they will dictate terms on the rest of us, tearing down whatever "open" is left. Average users are not going to install an open, non-DRM client if that doesn't allow them to use Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, BBC etcetera.

Thanks to "open", the total monopoly if Microsoft's IE6 was broken and the web moved forward. With DRM, that will no longer be a viable option. Google, Microsoft and Apple together will decide how we experience the web.

If you think "open" will still play a role in that, you must haven been living under a rock for the past 10 years. Even Google's love for "open" and "neutral" has been reduced to mostly marketing.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#48

Post by PavlovsCat » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 3:03 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #41

PavlovsCat wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this push requires converting the web into a closed platform How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.

Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are all open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source…

To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations.

ORLY? How does encryption work then? One could say "in order to properly encrypt your stuff, you actually need to make sure nobody is outside your window with binoculars", but that's not the job of encryption is it. I guess it would ultimately boil down to possession of private and public keys, and making it illegal to transmit those. So? As you said, they can deliver their stuff in proprietary apps already, what is lost when they use proprietary keys instead?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#49

Post by paulhauggis » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 3:06 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #18

lukifer wrote: post #5

I hate DRM too, and yet I love watching Netflix streaming. The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. The fact that DRM is always defeatable through hacks and analog loopholes doesn't matter: it just has to be good enough to deter the vast majority of users. I believe we need comprehensive IP reform across the boa…

"The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes." Yes, and if it is trivial to send photos without first developing them, the business model for Kodak will vanish! Why, if it were trivial for people to move a carriage from point A to point B, the business model for buggy whip makers might vanish! Why should we be conce…

Do you believe in unions then? Unions are pretty much the same thing. They inflate wages and force companies to pay workers a wage that would otherwise be much less. Unions have also prevented some jobs from being automated (IE: making them obsolete).

"start talking about the possibility of completely upending the copyright system and replacing it with something that makes sense now that we have the Internet."

If a company pours millions of dollars into something that many people enjoy, why shouldn't their works be protected?

You talk about changing the system and I feel like what you really want is no protection for content creators.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#50

Post by Udo » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 3:08 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #48

Udo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are all open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source…

To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. ORLY? How does encryption work then? One could say "in order to properly encrypt your stuff, you actually need to make sure nobody is outside your window with binoculars", but that's not the job of encryption is it. I guess it would ultimately boil down to possession of private and public keys,…

Yes, really. Encryption in the browser today works exactly the other way around. It's sole purpose is to ensure data integrity on my behalf as things are transmitted between me and my chosen endpoint. The endpoint is not protected from me, and I can do whatever I want with this data once it arrives in my browser. DRM would be the antithesis of that. The problem is not they keys, it's what they keys can control or not.