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

The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

freeculture.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#71

Post by shmerl »

cleverjake wrote: post #66
shmerl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one unethical junk already exists, why another needs to be created and specifically in HTML? Let's keep the Web clean.

To play to devils advocate - because that other unethical junk requires additional downloads and poses multiple security vulnerabilities. Right? Why wouldn't a sort of 'native plugin' be better in every sense of the word for the end user?

See below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599601

DRM by definition implies security and privacy risk. Focusing on minor issue (native plugin) while ignoring the major one (DRM) sounds strange. And in reality this whole EME thing won't even remove native DRM code. It just will hook it into JavaScript. The risk caused by DRM won't get any less than it is already.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#72

Post by kvb »

kevingadd wrote: post #35
cromwellian wrote: post #29

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the…

Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium? If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hook…

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#73

Post by cleverjake »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #22
cleverjake wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question - why is having a framework that allows for others to provide some form of DRM different from any other plugin system that exists currently?

Different, how? It's different in several ways. For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; meaning it's designed specifically with 1 use case in mind. Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality; I'm not aware of any other instance where a web API is created to disable features of a user's computer. I'm sure we can rattle off more ways that it is different, but I'm not sure what…

>> For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework;

A DRM plugin framework is by definition a plugin framework. I relly don't want DRM in html either, but I have a hard time finding logical arguments against it, and I don't see how this is a good one. If you could further your point, I would love to hear it.

>> Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality

Take away what functionality? The ability to download audio/video? Again, playing the devil's advocate, I would imagine a vast majority of the content that would be streamed using the DRM encodes would not be streamed using the video element currently - it would be streamed over flash/silverlight, etc (think netflix, hulu). If that is the case, what is it we are losing?

>> I'm not aware of any other instance where a web API is created to disable features of a user's computer

To be fair, this isn't. EME is just a way for people to create addons that leverage native encryption. The same is true of the current plugin system.

>>I'm sure we can rattle off more ways that it is different, but I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I am looking for logical reasons to say why adding EME hurts the open web so when I get into arguments I have better reasons other than 'I hate it'

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#74

Post by shitlord »

I can't believe that DRM is even on the table. It's ONLY purpose is to prevent third parties from accessing content, which is pretty much the antithesis of the web and open standards.

For me, what it all comes down to is this: HTML5 is supposed to have open standards, so if I implement those standards' specifications in my own web browser, I expect to be able to view and use websites that are HTML5-conformant.

If DRM goes through, this is what will probably happen: Internet Explorer and Google Chrome (two closed source browsers) will definitely implement it. Opera might implement it (who really knows what they'll do?). Chromium and Firefox probably won't implement it. DRM content will likely only be viewable on those two browsers, and only on a supported platform. If you use Firefox on Linux Mint, you're SOL. If you developed your own web browser, you're SOL. Even if you use Firefox on some closed source operating system like OS X, you're SOL.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#75

Post by john61 »

cromwellian wrote: post #43
nitrogen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. In this case, forget consumers. Once in a while, something is more important than appeasing the masses. A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser. Neither is a DRM-infested spec. Instead, you have un…

So if the vast majority of people end up using native apps, and more and more information gets siloed behind these native app clouds on DRM'ed mobile devices, because that's where the money is, and the Web becomes a ghost town, that would be better for everyone? The perfect is the enemy of the good.

The type of content that would be siloed behind DRM does not fit in a free peer to peer network of equitable peers anyway. TV is probably a better medium for that.

The Web is not a one way irrigation medium. It is about freedom. DRM is the opposite of that. Freedom is more important than money.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#76

Post by kevingadd »

kvb wrote: post #72
kevingadd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium? If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hook…

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

You're assuming that blockbuster movies are a business model that will continue to work in the future. That's highly questionable - in the game industry developers and publishers are being forced to accept the possibility that the blockbuster model is no longer going to be a reliable source of revenue or the right way to develop things. I won't claim to know enough to say whether this is true for film or television, but it is at least reasonable to ask 'maybe the reason these products require fragile, overcomplicated DRM solutions is because we're building the wrong products'.

I hate to use this analogy, but this really seems like a potential buggy-whip situation: It's quite possible that the content Big Media is producing is simply no longer relevant, even if the lack of relevance is due to changes in how people consume media and not because people are somehow no longer interested in explosions or big-name actors.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#77

Post by cantankerous »

kvb wrote: post #72
kevingadd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium? If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hook…

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

This. While I don't like DRM, I feel like this boxing out of DRM-using media companies is pointless. Consumers continue to subscribe to media sources they find convenient and many use DRM. This may not last forever, but I'm inclined to vote bring all these people into the fold on the modern web so it's a place for everyone. Nobody's forcing anybody to use DRM.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#78

Post by kalleboo »

shmerl wrote: post #71
cleverjake wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play to devils advocate - because that other unethical junk requires additional downloads and poses multiple security vulnerabilities. Right? Why wouldn't a sort of 'native plugin' be better in every sense of the word for the end user?

See below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599601 DRM by definition implies security and privacy risk. Focusing on minor issue (native plugin) while ignoring the major one (DRM) sounds strange. And in reality this whole EME thing won't even remove native DRM code. It just will hook it into JavaScript. The risk caused by DRM won't get any less than it is already.

> DRM by definition implies security and privacy risk

Source please

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#79

Post by cantankerous »

The W3C must ultimately do what it thinks is in the web's best interest. Not the interest of big media companies, or the interest of those against DRM. If they implement a system by which DRM can be reasonably added to the spec to bring those users and companies into the fold, I don't think I'd have much to call them out on, even though I don't like DRM. That bone is to be picked with the media companies themselves.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#80

Post by sillysaurus »

__david__ wrote: post #64
sillysaurus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just dumb. DRM is just dumb. It doesn't work for anything but the most naive case. It won't prevent distribution of "pirated" content, ever. Steam's DRM is why I've bought more games than I've pirated. iTunes DRM was why I've bought more songs than I would've pirated. They were both more convenient than pirating the content. Is a distribution channel a form of DRM?

> iTunes DRM was why I've bought more songs than I would've pirated. Which DRM are you talking about? iTunes hasn't had DRM on music for years. Like you said, iTunes being convenient is what makes it good. But iTunes is even better now that the DRM is gone (I can now play the songs I bought on non-Apple devices). I fail to see how you can argue that DRM doesn't make things worse.

I fail to see how you can argue that DRM doesn't make things worse.

My observation is that iTunes wouldn't have happened had they refused to implement DRM, not that DRM has merit.

Nobody wants DRM except those who hold power over content. In order to subvert them, we need to outmaneuver them, not refuse to play. In this light, iTunes is an excellent example of a DRM success story: fewer people with power over music content care to insist on music DRM.

Providers of content in other domains (e.g. books) will stop insisting on DRM when we demonstrate to them that systems without it are fundamentally more profitable in their domain than systems with it. I think this is doable, but not if we refuse to demonstrate it. They'll simply force people to switch platforms.

Post reply on HN