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

W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#611

Post by giobox »

jandrese wrote: post #6
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to…

This is really the issue. If we could convince media rightsholders that DRM is harmful and unnecessary then all of this heartache wouldn't be necessary. I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime. Any slight glimmer of hope from Apple ditching DRM on iTunes has died as nobody else shows the slightest interest in following their lead.

iTunes ditching DRM for purchased audio was never really a glimmer of hope for video, and lets face it this discussion is really about video more than anything else.

iTunes movies still have DRM. Arguably DRM free audio had extremely little bearing on the future of video, given the very different demands of each marketplace.

Remember also, that with a few exceptions (Sony rootkit anyone?), music had a long history of being DRM free before digital distribution came along (vinyl, tape, CD etc). Video distribution by contrast has a long tradition of many copy prevention "solutions" over the years on many different physical formats.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#612

Post by chenster »

yakubin wrote: post #593
driverdan wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It harms anyone who wants to use streaming content offline on devices they control. I often have slow internet access in my home which limits my ability to stream. If I can download when I have a good connection I can view later when my connection goes to shit. This is not an option with most streaming services (eg Netflix). I pay for these services. I should have control of how and when I view the content.

Netflix allows you to download videos. I've watched several episodes of Star Trek on a train this way.

You can even download Netflix to your phone and watch it later.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#613

Post by xvilka »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #161
throwaway613834 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it? Or do you really think these people have no idea what they're taking about?

The problem is that being "hard to save and distribute" means it doesn't work. It has to be more than hard. Piracy release groups enjoy "hard", and you only have to do the hard part once for a given title (or usually, for a given DRM technology). Once you strip it of its protection, you throw it online and anyone can download it. And now that you've broken that particular DRM technology, your results are repeatable a…

This is where technologies like TrustZone, Intel ME, Intel SGX, SecureBoot comes - you will have isolated environment, while DRM will be run in another chip or execution level. So you will need either elevate your privilegies via vulnerability, or via hardware reversing techniques. And it is already happening. Computers arent that open anymore, they became walled gardens already.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#614

Post by chrisweekly »

kerkeslager wrote: post #423
ashark wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone launches a new HTML-based Web with crippled javascript ( no network comm access, for one, including ability to trigger links or forms), some small, restricted subset of CSS, and much better built-in dynamic table and form elements, I'm there . This Web's about to be eaten by DRM and WebAssembly anyway. Pretty soon it'll just be a way to deliver QT apps (or some other framework that runs in WebAssembly and…

Ultimately, I think the failure of the open web runs deeper than that. When I visit, for example, a cookbook website, when I view a recipe, the problem isn't just that the site can run arbitrary scripts on my computer. It's also that I have no control over how that recipe displays because so much of that display is in HTML. I can't pull it into a useful format and store it with all my other recipes because it's in HT…

Respectfully, I see your complaint as conflating or combining several orthogonal issues. Addressing your sight-impaired grandmother's needs is a matter of accessibility; user-centric responsive design considerations relate more to CSS than JS.

Gotta push back against the "create more standardized doc types" bit (wat) -- it sounds like you want more APIs and more user-friendly tools for consuming them, which would be great and is more compatible with reality. SoA and recent shifts toward empowered-client approaches like GraphQL are steps in that direction.

I'm also glad you mentioned "documents" so often, because your ideas relate to a document-centric web. Which is not what we have. Rather it's evolved into an application delivery context.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#615

Post by paulddraper »

krupan wrote: post #553
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to…

Who watches Netflix with their browser ?

Me. I'm on my computer 50% of my day. I have it handy the most often.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#616

Post by krapp »

kelnos wrote: post #591
krapp wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Media companies couldn't give any less fucks about the web. They can go 100 years without publishing on the web, since they have other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with. No they can't. Physical media is going under. Newspapers and magazines are folding, music is primarily distributed digitally, even TV stations are treating the web as their primary means of content distribution. Media companies have no…

I think you're conflating "the web" with "the internet". Media companies only need the web for discovery; for display they can release native desktop apps, which can even be launched from the web. I'm not thrilled with DRM in the browser, but at least it's heavily sandboxed, and is way preferable to a series of native apps that get full access to my desktop.

>Media companies only need the web for discovery; for display they can release native desktop apps, which can even be launched from the web.

What percentage of consumers exclusively consume media through apps, though?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#617

Post by BinaryIdiot »

ehsankia wrote: post #570
colde wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be absolutely no change. All major browsers already implement EME (this includes Edge, IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera and a bunch of minor ones). I personally think it is a step forward, as it is much better than Silverlight. Now all the client behaviour is out in the open, and only the DRM piece is proprietary. There is no way that removing EME will make things better, that would just require all stre…

People were naively thinking/hoping that once Flash and plugins die, DRM would magically disappear and media companies would start putting all their content on the open web, for anyone to access. I'm with you, I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient. The option of there being no DRM was r…

> I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient.

So with EME vendors can still do this: "hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient"

EME just gives a basic API and a way to get this DRM stuff into the browser. This doesn't do what you think it does.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#618

Post by gras »

driverdan wrote: post #585
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems self-evidently unharmful, in that we appear to be in a golden era of delivering content online so extraordinary that it threatens traditional television networks. I understand that this is an extremely unpopular sentiment on HN, but here goes: at least with respect to video content, the industry seems to have largely proven DRM concerns unfounded. Update: modulo the Hickson concerns below. Continuing: DRM ce…

It harms anyone who wants to use streaming content offline on devices they control. I often have slow internet access in my home which limits my ability to stream. If I can download when I have a good connection I can view later when my connection goes to shit. This is not an option with most streaming services (eg Netflix). I pay for these services. I should have control of how and when I view the content.

I have the same issue. I have a Netflix subscription, but I also pirate things that are available there e.g. via PT, because I can then just use VLC and have that better user experience, including the possibility of taking the movie onto a train.

I think the limitations on playback are an unreasonable burden. More fundamentally, I think I should have the right to gain the fullest possible degree of control and knowledge of the workings of my computing equipment without being punished by the legal system. Just like I should have the right to repair, inspect and modify the physical objects I buy, should I be allowed to do that with my computing hardware and their information contents.

In the near future neural networks will recreate full software packages just from being connected to cloud-based applications that stream video and commands back and forth from a browser window (or a VNC-like desktop client/app). The DRM systems will always be cracked, because you fundamentally can't and should not be able to control what people do with the information you give them, and eventually even running the DRM by not sending the executable code at all will not be enough to make software impossible to copy.

However, I don't think this will be a large problem, because you can still fine people for sharing copyrighted material with randoms (I'm not sure I think that's a good idea, haven't thought about it enough), and once you have enough clients that integrate content stores and payment functionality with playback, you can get a user experience that is so much better than that of Spotify.

I think the right to free computation and inspection, repair, integration and modification of computing systems should be enshrined in national constitutions, as it is as fundamental as the right to free expression, and perhaps just the newest incarnation (and necessary extension) of that same principle.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#619

Post by md224 »

tptacek wrote: post #28
jandrese wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really the issue. If we could convince media rightsholders that DRM is harmful and unnecessary then all of this heartache wouldn't be necessary. I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime. Any slight glimmer of hope from Apple ditching DRM on iTunes has died as nobody else shows the slightest interest in following their lead.

It seems self-evidently unharmful, in that we appear to be in a golden era of delivering content online so extraordinary that it threatens traditional television networks. I understand that this is an extremely unpopular sentiment on HN, but here goes: at least with respect to video content, the industry seems to have largely proven DRM concerns unfounded. Update: modulo the Hickson concerns below. Continuing: DRM ce…

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument for DRM (we need to ensure artists receive fair compensation for their work), but I wonder:

If the entertainment industry could survive the age of "DVD ripping with abandon", can't it survive the age of "people copying Netflix movies with abandon"? Do industry leaders anticipate the latter will be much worse than the former? Is the cash flow situation that dire?

Or is DRM about something besides preventing piracy?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#620

Post by ehsankia »

mljoe wrote: post #606
ehsankia wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were naively thinking/hoping that once Flash and plugins die, DRM would magically disappear and media companies would start putting all their content on the open web, for anyone to access. I'm with you, I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient. The option of there being no DRM was r…

I wouldn't say that. If it between having no DRM and having no web presence, I think broadcasters would pick no DRM. DRM really doesn't do very much to protect against piracy. It's just a way for C-level execs to show they are doing something to protect their IP. It's a kind of security theater.

I think it's foolish to think that. Right now, if you wanted to share a video from HBO to your friend (assuming you couldn't give your account), what are your options. There's no easy way for you to just give that content to your friend. You'd have to link them to a third-party site hosting the content, which is not the same thing.

With no DRM, it would be as simple as doing a right-click and copy video link.

Post reply on HN