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

W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 314 posts

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#71

Post by betterunix »

wdewind wrote: post #54
marcosdumay wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters because of two things: 1 - We'll lose the W3C. We'll have to either create another standards body, or go back to the 90's situation when nobody agreed on anything. 2 - There are a few places where actualy reading the data somebody sent to you is a crime. Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them, at least for now…

1. I don't agree that this is true at all. The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard). I don't agree with copyright law, but it is law. We currently have a web that provides the ability to companies to protect their data via implementation, this simply provides a spec to d…

Copyright-compliant standard? How is the existing standard not compliant with copyrights?

This is not about making a copyright-friendly web. This is about attacking the openness of the web.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#73

Post by ferongr »

AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #22
Touche wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM is not in the browser. The browser just acts as a gateway to allow the website to talk to a DRM component in the OS (or potentially in hardware).

Take for example a DRM protected video. That video is being send to the framebuffer of my video card. If I use an open source OS and open source Browser, what on earth is stopping me from capturing that video output?

Open source OSes will probably not have CDMs available, except when prepackaged into a proprietary widget (Android, ChromeOS, B2G is Mozilla decides to play ball)

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#74

Post by frozenport »

AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #61
dublinben wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HDCP does a 'pretty good' job of achieving that. There's a protected path all the way to the display, that can't be accessed by other software.

If it's encrypted all the way to the hardware, then it get's a bit more believable. But that really can't be done on the web, can it? "You no have DRM chip? No tubez for you!"

1. Your cellphone can't watch YouTube without hardware decoding.

2. An issue closer to home can be seen http://wiki.xbmc.org/?title=Raspberry_Pi/FAQ#Video_and_audio... .

3. Companies target audiences and not platforms. For example, Netflix on Linux.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#75

Post by pippy »

HTML5 DRM video makes sense, and it might force content producers to modernise their distribution methods. This would be nice for consumers, many of who are forced to pirate simply because content isn't available in their country or don't have cable subscriptions.

It won't stop piracy, even if it means holding a camera up to the screen to capture the data.

However locking down the browser itself is simply ridiculous. it reminds me of snopes.com disabling right click.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#76

Post by glhaynes »

marcosdumay wrote: post #45
Supermighty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the WHATWG's position on this? They represent the browser makers. If they support DRM then it's game over. Another break-away standards group won't be able to do anything to sway the browser makers. What could they do?

Most browsers are free software nowadays. Their makers opinion is important (yeah, forking is hard work), but not that much.

This vastly underestimates the importance of the massive number of users running browsers supplied by the vendor of their device/OS.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#77

Post by chadwickthebold »

pkulak wrote: post #64

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? Right now we have Flash and Silverlight everywhere and it's a PITA. How open are those two? This adds the option of moving this stuff out of plugins. If you want to live in some…

There's a difference between a closed plugin and a closed browser. Let the DRM content stay in their plugins in their paywalled sites, while the web in general remains open and benefits from the creativity and innovation that flows from that openness.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#78

Post by yk »

wdewind wrote: post #54
marcosdumay wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters because of two things: 1 - We'll lose the W3C. We'll have to either create another standards body, or go back to the 90's situation when nobody agreed on anything. 2 - There are a few places where actualy reading the data somebody sent to you is a crime. Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them, at least for now…

1. I don't agree that this is true at all. The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard). I don't agree with copyright law, but it is law. We currently have a web that provides the ability to companies to protect their data via implementation, this simply provides a spec to d…

DRM can not work. Assuming that you don't come up with a plan, which prevents reading data, while allowing the reading of data. So if the W3C starts to write standards which defy the basis of logic, were are forced to abandon their standards, thus destroying the W3C.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#79

Post by betterunix »

pkulak wrote: post #64

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? Right now we have Flash and Silverlight everywhere and it's a PITA. How open are those two? This adds the option of moving this stuff out of plugins. If you want to live in some…

"Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM"

Why should we care? The web is not supposed to restrict users. If Universal does not like it, they can go somewhere else -- they have the cable TV system with all its restrictions and anti-freedom design.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#80

Post by schoen »

wdewind wrote: post #54
marcosdumay wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters because of two things: 1 - We'll lose the W3C. We'll have to either create another standards body, or go back to the 90's situation when nobody agreed on anything. 2 - There are a few places where actualy reading the data somebody sent to you is a crime. Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them, at least for now…

1. I don't agree that this is true at all. The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard). I don't agree with copyright law, but it is law. We currently have a web that provides the ability to companies to protect their data via implementation, this simply provides a spec to d…

There is no sense in which DRM is "copyright-compliant" and a lack of DRM is not "copyright-compliant", and there is no sense in which copyright requires anyone to help industry create or deploy DRM.
Post reply on HN