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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#791

Post by cabalamat »

cjsuk wrote: post #765
tudorw wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to win that war, we should focus on content not technology, Mosaic got a lead in the game because, despite the 'techies' seeing no use for images, image support was added, with images came the transition of media, users were au fait with articles containing text and images and could now experience similar on line, this alone was not enough, content creators starting creating content that people wanted to c…

I agree. Back in the dark ages, when the battle of www vs Gopher was still on, I sided heavily on the side of Gopher because it didn't get in the way of the content. Gopher was a means to navigate the maze of content and most of the content was textual, postscript and neatly typeset. You could sit down with it and read it focused or print it out. We've regressed to the point where 5KiB of text comes with 2MiB of crap…

> We've regressed to the point where 5KiB of text comes with 2MiB of crap, meaning a noise to signal ratio of 26dB which is insane!

Sadly the average clickbait article contains a lot less than 5000 characfters of actual text.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#792

Post by mirimir »

nsomaru wrote: post #748
thaumasiotes wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In french there's a saying : if you don't care about politics, then politics will take care of you... There is an English template for expressing this idea; it goes "You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you". I don't know what originally filled the spot where I've put in "politics".

Maybe 'war'?

Louis XIV had "Ultima ratio regum" on his cannons.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#793

Post by mcherm »

DCKing wrote: post #241

Can anybody explain to me what will change because of this decision? DRM has been very much part of the internet since 1995 when RealPlayer was released. DRM has been part of content delivery ever since then. It has not ever seem to have decreased in popularity, quite the opposite. The browsers that 99.9% of people use have already implemented this standard for years anyway. It's not obvious to me that this decision…

We could "solve" the entire ad-blocking "problem" by delivering DRM-protected web pages that cannot be modified by the end consumer, merely viewed. This would also "solve" the "problem" of scraping.

All that is needed now is a DRM format that delivers HTML/JavaScript and is implemented by Chrome, Safari, and maybe Edge.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#794

Post by CrystalGamma »

Freak_NL wrote: post #753
Alex3917 wrote: post #671

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. One of the main reasons we need so much new content is because a large percentage of old content is no longer accessible, mostly for reasons related to rights management.

There are so many excellent films made in the second half of the twentieth century that most people will only encounter when, ironically, a broadcaster shows it on classical linear television. I had hopes that Netflix becoming a global phenomenon meant that a vast library of content would become available, but instead we are now in an era of increasing fragmentation of content offered, with content providers becoming…

What, you mean return copyright to a state that worked for, what, a century, and which meant that people could actually freely remix things they saw as adolescents within their lifetimes? Blasphemy!

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#795

Post by doikor »

barrkel wrote: post #66
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…

I think you're discounting the opportunity cost here. In a world where browser manufacturers, as a block, refused to implement DRM, it's seems obvious that sooner or later visual media producers would be forced to the table, to gain access to paying consumers. We could be in a DRM-free world, without the inconveniences of elaborate technical restrictions on pass-through and mutual device compatibility, or black box b…

> In a world where browser manufacturers, as a block, refused to implement DRM

This is a world where we were a couple years ago. The content providers used plugins to provide DRM for the raw video (Widevine for example) or serve the video inside a container that has DRM (flash/silverlight). One of the main reasons for flash and silverlight dying away is that browsers could do more and more of what they did. And playing video the way the content producers/distributors wanted is a big part of that.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#796

Post by mirimir »

tudorw wrote: post #752
near wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web has been engineered to a complexity level so grossly obscene that it is all but impossible for independent developers to produce fully independent web browsers anymore. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and strong leadership to produce a browser that would be successful in today's world. I could dedicate the rest of my life working 100 hours a week on a browser, and I would die before…

If we want to win that war, we should focus on content not technology, Mosaic got a lead in the game because, despite the 'techies' seeing no use for images, image support was added, with images came the transition of media, users were au fait with articles containing text and images and could now experience similar on line, this alone was not enough, content creators starting creating content that people wanted to c…

I don't see any way to win that war. The IP oligarchs have won it. They own the W3C now.

But there is clearly a demand for DRM-free browsers. And if the worst fears are realized, and mainstream browsers won't display media without DRM, or become snooping devices for IP oligarchs, that demand will increase.

Sure, it'll never be more than a niche, but DRM-free browsers will be there for those who want them.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#797

Post by tinus_hn »

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…

They could definitely hurt Netflix by making it a shitty, barely workable experience.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#800

Post by fauigerzigerk »

sitkack wrote: post #715
ABCLAW wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are additional concerns associated with DRM that aren't revealed in the Hickson post - he speaks solely to the point of intention behind DRM. That begs the question: are there unintended victims of DRM? Yes, there are. Copyright law in most countries is the result of a long history of back-and-forth fighting between content creators and content consumers. Copyright infringement has a number of carve-outs that a…

> between content creators and content consumers I think of it as the triumvirate of creators, owners (distributors) and consumers. The owners argue as if they create, the do not, they simply own the rights to distribute and take money. The vast majority of creators are getting shafted as well.

>The owners argue as if they create, the do not, they simply own the rights to distribute and take money.

No. Creators are the owners of whatever they create unless and until they sign those rights away. And they sign it away for something they get in return.

It may well be that the media industry is structured in a way that puts creators at an unfair disadvantage in their dealings with media companies. If that is so then it should change.

But using this issue to justify completely unrestricted copying of all content regardless of what creators want is a cop out. Invoking the big business bogeyman as the sole response to all copyright issues is unconvincing, insufficient and ineffective.

What we need is a form of DRM that guarantees fair use rights and doesn't give draconian enforcement and surveillance powers to copyright owners.

Post reply on HN