7 ms·

tl;dr The download button removes a small barrier that users currently have to save HTML 5 content. The size of the barrier depends on the media but the justif

by redm 10y ago

tl;dr The download button removes a small barrier that users currently have to save HTML 5 content. The size of the barrier depends on the media but the justification on the part of the content owners/creators is the same: protect the value of the content or the website it was published on. While the concerns are valid, if history is any teacher, technology will march onward and we'll soon have download buttons on all HTML5 content, one way or another.

Silhouette 10y ago
The download button removes a small barrier that users currently have to save HTML 5 content. It didn't just remove a small barrier, it actively invited people to download and save the content. That's a very different thing.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Endy 10y ago
  Yes, it's the only positive thing about Chrome and HTML5, really.
  - Buge 10y ago
    And the ability to play video without being exploited by Flash vulnerabilities is not a positive thing?
    - shakna 10y ago
      It's not a hell of a lot of change when the DRM blob that gets sent down the wire is just as opaque.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        At least in Firefox (don't know about Chrome), it's also much more restricted in what it can do.
      - caryhartline 10y ago
        I can only assume you're just posturing because the size and scope of Flash and the size of scope of Flash's security problems are _way_ beyond just a DRM blob.
        shakna 10y ago
        > size of scope of Flash's security problems are _way_ beyond just a DRM blob. Not sure about that, considering the Widevine's CVEs on Android have been quite bad with privelege escalation and sandbox escaping. A bad video can still be enough to burn your system. That's a full security scope right there.
        shakna 10y ago
        Just the source, because I hate unsourced claims. [0] http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2015-6639/ http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2015-6639/ - Integrity Impact Complete (There is a total compromise of system integrity. There is a complete loss of system protection, resulting in the entire system being compromised.) It is also worth noting that finding vulnerabilities may be a crime in many jurisdictions [1] (thanks to the DCMA), which would prevent researching coming forward. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w3c-defending-future-present https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w...
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        But this problem didn't affect sites using DRM, it just undermined sites that preferred not to. This problem is the reason a lot more sites have rapidly switched to using DRM or other less easily exploitable ways to serve video this year.
      - Buge 10y ago
        You can at least disable the DRM and still watch videos without it.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Undermining websites who were trying not to go the heavyweight DRM route is a positive thing?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  That's a good thing.
  - 2bitencryption 10y ago
    Is it? Lets say I run a news site. I'm hip and modern and I want to host my stuff with static HTML5 using modern open source encoding (VP9/WebM). I don't want to force my users to use some crummy Flash player that will slow down their browser and be unsafe. But I don't want the user's browser to provide an immediate and obvious "DOWNLOAD" button on my content. Sure, if they really want to, they can inspect the page and download the video. But having a download button right in my content is not the user experience I have in mind for this site. Not because I don't want people downloading my videos. But because I don't want to ADVERTISE downloading my videos, which is what this button does without my consent. So since that's a non-starter, now I'm going to have to use a crappy flash player that will reintroduce that small barrier preventing them from having an obvious "download" button.
    - the8472 10y ago
      > which is what this button does without my consent. Your consent does not matter how content is ultimately rendered on and by the user's machine, it's their machine, not yours. If they want the <video> element displayed in a specific way it will be displayed in a specific way. This merely gives you an illusion of control, control you never had since video elements (especially their context menu) are not part of the DOM.
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        Your consent does not matter how content is ultimately rendered on and by the user's machine, it's their machine, not yours. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, that isn't really true at all. There are plenty of other ways to serve video, and plenty of ways users' own machines can be used against them that are widely supported by the companies building those machines. All this attitude does is promote more heavy-handed control. People complain about the rise of devices that aren't so user-programmable, and the standardisation of technologies like DRM, and the limited availability of some content on minority platforms like Linux, as being user-hostile and reducing freedom and openness on the web. And yet then we see discussions like this, full of people abusing that freedom to break the law and openly apologetic of a simple change that invited even those who wouldn't intentionally violate another's trust to do so unwittingly.
nashashmi 10y ago
People on the comments are also complaining that the download button is showing for content that cannot be downloaded leading to user complaints to the website.
- averagewall 10y ago
  That actually makes sense - their service might allow you to download something in a special format that you want, and the website uses a video to preview it. For example a video editing or animation generation tool. You might want to save the definition so it can be edited again later. Then people are ended up with just the preview and have lost their work.
tomc1985 10y ago
I know more than a few people whose first introduction to a command line was youtube-dl
dchest 10y ago
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596#c5 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596...

by redm 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

The download button removes a small barrier that users currently have to save HTML 5 content. It didn't just remove a small barrier, it actively invited people to download and save the content. That's a very different thing.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Endy 10y ago
Yes, it's the only positive thing about Chrome and HTML5, really.
- Buge 10y ago
  And the ability to play video without being exploited by Flash vulnerabilities is not a positive thing?
  - shakna 10y ago
    It's not a hell of a lot of change when the DRM blob that gets sent down the wire is just as opaque.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      At least in Firefox (don't know about Chrome), it's also much more restricted in what it can do.
    - caryhartline 10y ago
      I can only assume you're just posturing because the size and scope of Flash and the size of scope of Flash's security problems are _way_ beyond just a DRM blob.
      - shakna 10y ago
        > size of scope of Flash's security problems are _way_ beyond just a DRM blob. Not sure about that, considering the Widevine's CVEs on Android have been quite bad with privelege escalation and sandbox escaping. A bad video can still be enough to burn your system. That's a full security scope right there.
        shakna 10y ago
        Just the source, because I hate unsourced claims. [0] http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2015-6639/ http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2015-6639/ - Integrity Impact Complete (There is a total compromise of system integrity. There is a complete loss of system protection, resulting in the entire system being compromised.) It is also worth noting that finding vulnerabilities may be a crime in many jurisdictions [1] (thanks to the DCMA), which would prevent researching coming forward. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w3c-defending-future-present https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w...
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      But this problem didn't affect sites using DRM, it just undermined sites that preferred not to. This problem is the reason a lot more sites have rapidly switched to using DRM or other less easily exploitable ways to serve video this year.
    - Buge 10y ago
      You can at least disable the DRM and still watch videos without it.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Undermining websites who were trying not to go the heavyweight DRM route is a positive thing?
TeMPOraL 10y ago
That's a good thing.
- 2bitencryption 10y ago
  Is it? Lets say I run a news site. I'm hip and modern and I want to host my stuff with static HTML5 using modern open source encoding (VP9/WebM). I don't want to force my users to use some crummy Flash player that will slow down their browser and be unsafe. But I don't want the user's browser to provide an immediate and obvious "DOWNLOAD" button on my content. Sure, if they really want to, they can inspect the page and download the video. But having a download button right in my content is not the user experience I have in mind for this site. Not because I don't want people downloading my videos. But because I don't want to ADVERTISE downloading my videos, which is what this button does without my consent. So since that's a non-starter, now I'm going to have to use a crappy flash player that will reintroduce that small barrier preventing them from having an obvious "download" button.
  - the8472 10y ago
    > which is what this button does without my consent. Your consent does not matter how content is ultimately rendered on and by the user's machine, it's their machine, not yours. If they want the <video> element displayed in a specific way it will be displayed in a specific way. This merely gives you an illusion of control, control you never had since video elements (especially their context menu) are not part of the DOM.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Your consent does not matter how content is ultimately rendered on and by the user's machine, it's their machine, not yours. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, that isn't really true at all. There are plenty of other ways to serve video, and plenty of ways users' own machines can be used against them that are widely supported by the companies building those machines. All this attitude does is promote more heavy-handed control. People complain about the rise of devices that aren't so user-programmable, and the standardisation of technologies like DRM, and the limited availability of some content on minority platforms like Linux, as being user-hostile and reducing freedom and openness on the web. And yet then we see discussions like this, full of people abusing that freedom to break the law and openly apologetic of a simple change that invited even those who wouldn't intentionally violate another's trust to do so unwittingly.

nashashmi 10y ago

People on the comments are also complaining that the download button is showing for content that cannot be downloaded leading to user complaints to the website.

averagewall 10y ago
That actually makes sense - their service might allow you to download something in a special format that you want, and the website uses a video to preview it. For example a video editing or animation generation tool. You might want to save the definition so it can be edited again later. Then people are ended up with just the preview and have lost their work.

tomc1985 10y ago

I know more than a few people whose first introduction to a command line was youtube-dl

dchest 10y ago

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596#c5 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596...