Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition • Hacker News Board

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#51

Post by virtualized » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 9:26 AM UTC

robwilliams wrote: post #49

chriswarbo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say there's concensus. > because the alternative to this proposal is not "no DRM", the alternative is a worse UX from a plethora of more hostile, wider reaching proprietary DRM implementations. Good. Everything which makes DRM easier to implement, more reliable/stable/cross-platform/interoperable/etc., more streamlined and simpler to use, just skews the cost/benefit in the wrong direction. Everyone should…

Genuine question: how should streaming companies protect against their content being stolen/ripped/etc without DRM? What's the alternative? I'm sure it's in the contract of every streaming service that they have to protect the licensed content to the best of their ability. Saying "fuck the greedy media companies" doesn't help the streaming services that need to license content to survive. Considering almost half of a…

> how should streaming companies protect against their content being stolen/ripped/etc without DRM?

They shouldn't because it is useless. DRM can always be circumvented.

> it's in the contract of every streaming service that they have to protect the licensed content to the best of their ability

This is the only reason why DRM exists: Stupid, greedy rights sellers. They don't care why or how people consume the media. They only see licenses and money. "Protecting" licenses equals protecting money for them.

DRM is not bad because I want to "steal" anything. It is bad because proprietary software with the main goal of restricting its users leads to a bad experience. Amazon Prime Video for example is horribly buggy and hard to use. If I could use a decent player, I would pay more money for the service. Both sides would benefit from no DRM, but greedy rights sellers don't have logical thinking in their toolbox.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#52

Post by belorn » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 10:12 AM UTC

robwilliams wrote: post #49

chriswarbo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say there's concensus. > because the alternative to this proposal is not "no DRM", the alternative is a worse UX from a plethora of more hostile, wider reaching proprietary DRM implementations. Good. Everything which makes DRM easier to implement, more reliable/stable/cross-platform/interoperable/etc., more streamlined and simpler to use, just skews the cost/benefit in the wrong direction. Everyone should…

Genuine question: how should streaming companies protect against their content being stolen/ripped/etc without DRM? What's the alternative? I'm sure it's in the contract of every streaming service that they have to protect the licensed content to the best of their ability. Saying "fuck the greedy media companies" doesn't help the streaming services that need to license content to survive. Considering almost half of a…

DRM is not about protecting content, its about lock-in and keeping users on a single platform. Security researchers (schneier) has written about it. Content creators has written about it (Doctorow's Law), advocates has written about it (EFF), and of course users has written about it endlessly. The only people who argue that DRM is about protection is the publishers.

There are a few schemes, which normally do not even count as DRM, that is intended to protect copyrighted material. Encrypted TV channels is a primarily example. A streaming service could copy that scheme, but delivery physical tamper-proof boxes that do key-exchange every few minutes is quite expensive. Alternative they could what YouTube/Twitch do, which makes copying a stream about as difficult as downloading a pirated version from a torrent site (ie, you need to use a third-party software). For movies, it is the best protection as you can get without having to distribute physical boxes.

Re: Web DRM moves to next phase, Defective by Design to continue opposition

#53

Post by simbalion » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #16

simbalion wrote: post #10

Why can't Tim Berners-Lee be fired? We build the web, not corporations. We control the web, not corporations. Let's just take the power away from them and put their egos in check.

"We" certainly don't control the web; for the most part, the organizations that develop the most influential browsers do, with some input from the W3C, which is itself controlled by its 420 members. The population at large mostly has a say by deciding which browser they use, and as long as people use DRM-friendly browsers, DRM is what they'll get.

Your comment first says that Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, and Apple control the web and then says actually people control it by which browsers they use.

Truth is it's a mix. Mozilla, Google, Microsoft and Apple are corporations of people who's influence is small and meaningful just like yours or mine.

When I read this article it seemed to suggest that the W3C is not fitting within this mostly open society.

History has shown us that DRM benefits only the largest richest and most single-minded corporations, and usually at some detriment to the user.