Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC demands DRM for HTML5

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#61

Post by jshen »

anonymous wrote: post #53
PavlovsCat wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

YARLY! If you encrypt content, it's not DRM-protected. When you use a normal everyday encryption solution, you send me the encrypted data, encrypted with my public key and I decrypt it with my private key and then I CAN DO WHAT I WANT with it. That is what the entertainment companies want to protect against - the ability to move the plain bits once you have them decrypted. With any open-source software, you can chang…

Most entertainment companies accept the current flash based solutions as sufficient. In this case they are trying to bring html5 to te same level as flash.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#62

Post by jshen »

Udo wrote: post #50
PavlovsCat wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They aren't trying to "properly" lock it down. They are trying to bring html5 up to the same level as current flash based solutions.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#63

Post by [deleted] »

Udo wrote: post #10
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#64

Post by PavlovsCat »

grhino wrote: post #58
PavlovsCat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what would the result be? Everybody gets into bed with advertising, all the time? Why not simply make DRM super simple, kinda like adding an IMG tag to webpage is now? Then artists etc. can become the content providers, decide themselves what they want to offer and how much it would cost, and the audience in turn can decide wether that is fair or a ripoff. That'd be evolution worth talking about.. But if you just…

AFAIK, all popular DRM schemes have been circumvented. In principle, any DRM scheme can be circumvented unless the hardware that decrypts the content (and therefore holds the private key in memory) self-destructs when tampered with. This is a battle that content providers want to win. They can always find some plucky technologist saying that have an unbreakable DRM scheme. In the end, the question is whether DRM real…

Then kill the content providers dead for all I care; let's talk about content creators instead. I mean, just consider the evil record companies: for every artist they exploited, there was an artist signing a contract. Are they just that stupid, do they feel forced by the uncertainty of their profession? Etc. But to just pretend content providers are sitting on something that ought to be free is bullshit. And I say this as someone who never took a cent for a photo or song I made. That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#65

Post by ldite »

This is less to do with the "public" internet as accessed from mobile/desktop browsers; it's about enabling the next-generation of HTML5 based interactive TVs and STBs to interoperate with already deployed DRM and encryption platforms, such as TDT premium in Spain, Top-up TV in the UK, and various CI+ based cable operators across Europe.

The DRM is already out there, HTML boxes are already out there, some sort of API is going to happen (even if not through the W3C then through some organisation like HbbTV or OIPF) and if the BBC sticks its fingers in its ears and ignores this then it risks being stuck with an objectively worse API that its luckless developers will end up bashing their heads against at some point in the future.

(Incidentally, this is the thread from the last time this came up; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3620432 )

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#66

Post by betterunix »

edanm wrote: post #54
betterunix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

We like content. There is a business model that (most people agree) makes it so more content is created. You are saying "why should we care about that business model being wiped out" [1], and the reason is because most people agree that that business model makes it so more content is created, which is what we want. To convince us that we in fact shouldn't care, convince us either that: 1. Content (of similar quantity…

"Content (of similar quantity and quality) will in fact still be created, in spite of that business model dying. You're not likely to convince people of this, I believe."

"Content" was created long before copyrights. Technology may have changed and opened the door to new kinds of entertainment, but if you are looking for an example of how entertainment might be created in the absence of copyright, you need look no further than a history book.

How will movies be monetized? Maybe we need movie theaters to deliver a positive experience we cannot easily duplicate in our homes. Maybe we will see an increase in serials -- you do not get to see the next installment of a popular show until a certain amount of money is paid. Maybe there is some radically different way to monetize movies that neither you nor I are creative enough to come up with. As long as we cling to copyright, however, we will not only never see such things, but we will continue to see great systems and technologies killed in the name of copyright enforcement.

"Content (of similar quantity and quality)"

I think we can strive for something of better quality than what we see today. The majority of today's mainstream music and movies are not particularly high quality -- formulaic plots, formulaic melodies and arrangements, a heavy focus on special effects to make up for bad storytelling and unoriginal music, and a general lack of creativity.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#67

Post by icebraining »

jshen wrote: post #61
anonymous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YARLY! If you encrypt content, it's not DRM-protected. When you use a normal everyday encryption solution, you send me the encrypted data, encrypted with my public key and I decrypt it with my private key and then I CAN DO WHAT I WANT with it. That is what the entertainment companies want to protect against - the ability to move the plain bits once you have them decrypted. With any open-source software, you can chang…

Most entertainment companies accept the current flash based solutions as sufficient. In this case they are trying to bring html5 to te same level as flash.

Exactly; closed source and patented.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#68

Post by coldtea »

paulhauggis wrote: post #49
betterunix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 c…

>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.

That's the neoliberals or naive american's view on unions.

People all over the world would beg to differ.

Unions restore (some) of the imbalance in power between the employeer and the individual worker.

The protect people that need a job to feed their families against blackmail from those offering a job, and force companies to pay a wage that would otherwise be much less (at the threshold of substinence, if there weren't any unions around, such as it was in the 19th century).

Unions have also won many cherished rights, from prohibiting child labour, to the 8-hour work week, to work safety measures...

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#69

Post by gph »

npsimons wrote: post #57
spo81rty wrote: post #44

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.

I've got a standard for DRM: don't use it. It's easy, cheap and doesn't require any laws or draconian software requirements on end users. I've been using this DRM standard for decades, and yet the people who make the software I use and the music and movies I enjoy are still rolling in dough!

So you've never bought a DVD or streamed anything through Flash or Silverlight by a major publishing studio? Never watched a music video on Youtube that it didn't allow you to directly download?

If so, congrats on sticking to principles. But that's not really a realistic solution for the majority of people.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#70

Post by AnthonyMouse »

samworm wrote: post #4
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…

My argument, and I sent this too them when they were doing a consultation a while ago, is that they shouldn't be buying content that they can't use for public service purposes. We have many good sources of movies in the UK, and many of them are "free" at the point of use (ie advert funded). Let them show Madagascar, and while they do that the BBC can run some other program. They should remove themselves from the cont…

>They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead.

Better yet, take the money they're paying to run Madagascar and use it to fund more original BBC content.

Post reply on HN