4 ms·

>>On the better web Berners-Lee envisions, users control I have a hard time taking him seriously at this point, he talks about User control while at the same

by syshum 10y ago

>>On the better web Berners-Lee envisions, users control I have a hard time taking him seriously at this point, he talks about User control while at the same time advocating for the Advancement of DRM in HTML5 standard I can not square these positions, DRM is anti-user. You can not be for User control while also supporting DRM. Pick one

hutzlibu 10y ago
Users want drm. You don't, I don't, most others here not, but in general, they just want their movie. And they will use other technology, if the web does not provide what they want. So for the html5 to stay relevant, it sadly has to contain it. Even though we can do without.
- ue_ 10y ago
  Sometimes I think that those who complain about 'normal people' on the net have some kind of a point. Would we be here with this kind of dilemma about popularity if the net never took off for 'normal' people?
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    Isn't the net big enough for everyone? In fact people who don't use centralized networks benefit from the infrastructure invest from those who do.
- pharrlax 10y ago
  "Want" is a tricky word here because you're conflating the micro and macro wants of people. On a micro level, surveys show most people are extremely anti-free speech. Individuals are broadly onboard with the extreme and and anti-constitutional suppression of speech that runs counter to their political / religious beliefs. And yet on a macro level, we tend to recognize in how we build our institutions that we strive toward a society that doesn't suppress speech. Same with DRM. Just because everyone might say "Uh, fine, just start playing Moana already" doesn't mean we collectively would prefer the macro results of ubiquitous DRM.
- syshum 10y ago
  >Users want drm. False. >they just want their movie. That is the correct statement, Most "users" do not know what DRM so they can not "want it" as you claim What they want is for their technology to work. DRM inhibits this. Gaming is an example where users actively are agaist DRM, because in gaming DRM often punishes paying customers BluRay is another example where Paying Legit Customers are punished as BluRay has a way to effectively brick BluRay players via their DRM update methodology Users do not want DRM, they want the content they desire on the Platform/Service they desire. >>So for the html5 to stay relevant, it sadly has to contain it. False Again. Netflix and Google has Achieved what Microsoft Dreamed of in the Browser wars of the 90's Vendor Lockin. No longer is HTML5 a open standard for all, in order to make a HTML5 browser for your platform that plays Video you must now beg Adobe, Microsoft or Google for Permission to use their proprietary bits. W3C has violated their Core mission statement, as such they are no longer relevant at all, they serve no purpose now. We need a New WHATWG, W3C is cancer
- byuu 10y ago
  Why can't HTML5 be relevant without Netflix? Most gamers use Steam, not WebGL, and the internet hasn't fallen apart. People can survive using Roku/FireTV/AppleTV/PS4/XB3/standalone PC app for their streaming movie services. And if Google and Mozilla would allow people to keep installing third-party plugins like Flash, then they could do that to watch Netflix inside their browser. If you become your enemy to defeat him, then you've already lost whatever it was you were fighting for.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    The difference between games and video is there's precedent for video: Netflix, e.g., has been on the web since 2007, games never really have. Videos moving away from the web would be far more noticeable to the average user than games continuing to not be on the web. There's good reasons to kill plugins: their security policies are almost always weaker than browsers and many security attacks on browsers and networks have used them. EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges.
    - byuu 10y ago
      Removing the web client of Netflix would hurt them a lot more than it'd hurt Google and Mozilla. I really don't believe that without EME, Netflix would abandon their web client. They'd just keep using Flash, which I am fine with, since I don't use their web player anyway. But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. > EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges. I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities.
      - gsnedders 10y ago
        > But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. > I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does, as a result of its functionality being a superset of any EME plugin (okay, theoretically an EME plugin could use them all, but there's no evidence of any trying to do so). An EME plugin doesn't: need access to any web cam/microphone (or other devices), unrestricted filesystem access, etc. All of those are things that Flash can do. Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though; once a small number of big sites rely on it and it has the installed userbase it's a relatively weak argument. > Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities. Oh, I'm not claiming EME is good, but I think it's worthwhile understanding its benefits relative to the historic status quo if you want to argue against it. (I also have concerns about only worrying about the DMCA: other jurisdictions have similar laws around DRM and I don't think we should allow only those in the US to do security work on browsers.)
smichel17 10y ago
Companies are still going to use drm even if it's not in the standard, and then the standards they do use will become even more fractured. I doubt Tim likes drm; I believe he views standardization as a greater good than exclusion from the protocol. (Note: As I understand it, "Tim" is how he prefers to be called; I don't know him)

by syshum 10y ago

hutzlibu 10y ago

Users want drm. You don't, I don't, most others here not, but in general, they just want their movie. And they will use other technology, if the web does not provide what they want. So for the html5 to stay relevant, it sadly has to contain it. Even though we can do without.

ue_ 10y ago
Sometimes I think that those who complain about 'normal people' on the net have some kind of a point. Would we be here with this kind of dilemma about popularity if the net never took off for 'normal' people?
- merpnderp 10y ago
  Isn't the net big enough for everyone? In fact people who don't use centralized networks benefit from the infrastructure invest from those who do.
pharrlax 10y ago
"Want" is a tricky word here because you're conflating the micro and macro wants of people. On a micro level, surveys show most people are extremely anti-free speech. Individuals are broadly onboard with the extreme and and anti-constitutional suppression of speech that runs counter to their political / religious beliefs. And yet on a macro level, we tend to recognize in how we build our institutions that we strive toward a society that doesn't suppress speech. Same with DRM. Just because everyone might say "Uh, fine, just start playing Moana already" doesn't mean we collectively would prefer the macro results of ubiquitous DRM.
syshum 10y ago
>Users want drm. False. >they just want their movie. That is the correct statement, Most "users" do not know what DRM so they can not "want it" as you claim What they want is for their technology to work. DRM inhibits this. Gaming is an example where users actively are agaist DRM, because in gaming DRM often punishes paying customers BluRay is another example where Paying Legit Customers are punished as BluRay has a way to effectively brick BluRay players via their DRM update methodology Users do not want DRM, they want the content they desire on the Platform/Service they desire. >>So for the html5 to stay relevant, it sadly has to contain it. False Again. Netflix and Google has Achieved what Microsoft Dreamed of in the Browser wars of the 90's Vendor Lockin. No longer is HTML5 a open standard for all, in order to make a HTML5 browser for your platform that plays Video you must now beg Adobe, Microsoft or Google for Permission to use their proprietary bits. W3C has violated their Core mission statement, as such they are no longer relevant at all, they serve no purpose now. We need a New WHATWG, W3C is cancer
byuu 10y ago
Why can't HTML5 be relevant without Netflix? Most gamers use Steam, not WebGL, and the internet hasn't fallen apart. People can survive using Roku/FireTV/AppleTV/PS4/XB3/standalone PC app for their streaming movie services. And if Google and Mozilla would allow people to keep installing third-party plugins like Flash, then they could do that to watch Netflix inside their browser. If you become your enemy to defeat him, then you've already lost whatever it was you were fighting for.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  The difference between games and video is there's precedent for video: Netflix, e.g., has been on the web since 2007, games never really have. Videos moving away from the web would be far more noticeable to the average user than games continuing to not be on the web. There's good reasons to kill plugins: their security policies are almost always weaker than browsers and many security attacks on browsers and networks have used them. EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges.
  - byuu 10y ago
    Removing the web client of Netflix would hurt them a lot more than it'd hurt Google and Mozilla. I really don't believe that without EME, Netflix would abandon their web client. They'd just keep using Flash, which I am fine with, since I don't use their web player anyway. But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. > EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges. I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities.
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      > But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. > I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does, as a result of its functionality being a superset of any EME plugin (okay, theoretically an EME plugin could use them all, but there's no evidence of any trying to do so). An EME plugin doesn't: need access to any web cam/microphone (or other devices), unrestricted filesystem access, etc. All of those are things that Flash can do. Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though; once a small number of big sites rely on it and it has the installed userbase it's a relatively weak argument. > Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities. Oh, I'm not claiming EME is good, but I think it's worthwhile understanding its benefits relative to the historic status quo if you want to argue against it. (I also have concerns about only worrying about the DMCA: other jurisdictions have similar laws around DRM and I don't think we should allow only those in the US to do security work on browsers.)

smichel17 10y ago

Companies are still going to use drm even if it's not in the standard, and then the standards they do use will become even more fractured. I doubt Tim likes drm; I believe he views standardization as a greater good than exclusion from the protocol. (Note: As I understand it, "Tim" is how he prefers to be called; I don't know him)