4 ms·

On one hand, this is terrible for freedom in our software; on the other, this isn't the "death of the open Web" that some are proclaiming. The media groups wan

by Fej 9y ago

On one hand, this is terrible for freedom in our software; on the other, this isn't the "death of the open Web" that some are proclaiming. The media groups want DRM and they will get it. This doesn't mean that we are going to lose all freedom on the Web. It's a step in that direction, certainly, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

5ilv3r 9y ago
It is already very difficult to distribute your own content without subjecting it to some other entity's distribution system, and soon it will be impossible. Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete.
- ascagnel_ 9y ago
  > Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete. I'm going to need some citations that this is even remotely in the plan (and requiring HTTPS isn't the same as refusing to load unsigned content, since that's on the transport level).
  - mimsee 9y ago
    I don't think he ever said HTTPS. By "unsigned content" he meant that video files for example can't be played unless a Hollywood rightowner has granted playback access for the file. However in the future this DRM will be an freedom-of-speech issue. The goverment could use it as means to silence people. North-Korea is currently ahead of us. Any videos you take could be automatically signed and later on pulled by the gov. by revoking the signature. Now extending this to basic text, images, VR?, and whatever new mediaformats there will be in the future. I highly recommend watching video where a tablet from North-Korea gets inspected. It explains how NK keeps control of its citizens. https://youtu.be/fAtWwadP6CY https://youtu.be/fAtWwadP6CY
    - ascagnel_ 9y ago
      I only mentioned HTTPS in the sense that browsers now actively push users away from unsecured transport connections. And please provide some example of any browser vendor making moves to block/delist unsigned videos/photos for _any_ reason.
- conductr 9y ago
  I'm not knowledgeable enough to fully disagree. However, I do not feel it is the browsers job to ignore a potentially useful technology (albeit for some evil media companies) because you have a distribution/marketing problem with your own content. I think they will instead include this tech and make it usable for those who want it and continue supporting non-DRM media for those who don't want it. They're not going to block your ability to share your content without DRM.
  - mimsee 9y ago
    > They're not going to block your ability to share your content without DRM. Of course not. Then they would block all of YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo along with all other video sharing platforms, not to mention adult ones. It would hit home too hard to require DRM be installed right away. But on the long run?
    - tdy721 9y ago
      adult ones See: Great Britian I would love to see how that's working out for them, but even to wonder about the experiment borders on paedophilia. This is a tough nut to crack. (punintended...)
- floatboth 9y ago
  > Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content This statement is SO RIDICULOUS it just broke my brain. How?! Why?! Even the evil movie companies don't want to prevent you from sharing your home video online.
saganus 9y ago
But how long will it take for websites to be delivered with DRM so they can't be archived,scraped, saved to disk, screenshot, etc? I agree that it's "only" a step in that direction, but this can snowball and get ugly pretty fast.
- tdy721 9y ago
  I feel you've brought the Browsers (Software, layer 5+) to an ISP fight (Layer 1-4). One that the 99% lost a long time ago. This has been snowballing for a very long time, I feel that momentum is minimal. This snowball is being pushed by pure force. Power! Unlimited Power! -Darth Sidious
  - saganus 9y ago
    Yeah, maybe. But I think it's still a possibility. Never underestimate companies that want to "innovate". I mean, standardizing a DRM API on browsers is probably going to bring us a lot of new "tools" which people will try to use for a lot of different things, and I can very easily imagine they will explore the possibility of paywalls and such. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that sometimes layers don't seem to be as separate as we engineers would like them to be.
appleflaxen 9y ago
this is just the first step down a slippery slope. and it _is_ a slippery slope. are you really going to _not_ use gmail and google maps because you can't see the source code? of course you're not. but is it beneficial for google to lock their code up behind a DRM blob? of course it is. so there is every incentive in the world for web pages to be made proprietary, and no incentive at all for users to put up a fight (which is why this first step is so important: because it's being made at the level of technologists, who supposably have the insight to know why it's important). but after this, the progression will be slow, but relentless, toward a closed web. Even if a subset of ideological wackos decide to fight... they're just ideological wackos. Stallman was right, and this is the exact same thing playing out again on a distributed medium.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- floatboth 9y ago
  > is it beneficial for google to lock their code up behind a DRM blob? of course it is. No, it's not. Their code is locked behind… uh… A SERVER. You could never see the server side code, and it's always been that way. They do not give a flying fuck about people looking at their JavaScript UI code! That code is really, really NOT where the value is. The value is in the service — the databases full of data, the user accounts.

by Fej 9y ago

5ilv3r 9y ago

It is already very difficult to distribute your own content without subjecting it to some other entity's distribution system, and soon it will be impossible. Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete.

ascagnel_ 9y ago
> Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete. I'm going to need some citations that this is even remotely in the plan (and requiring HTTPS isn't the same as refusing to load unsigned content, since that's on the transport level).
- mimsee 9y ago
  I don't think he ever said HTTPS. By "unsigned content" he meant that video files for example can't be played unless a Hollywood rightowner has granted playback access for the file. However in the future this DRM will be an freedom-of-speech issue. The goverment could use it as means to silence people. North-Korea is currently ahead of us. Any videos you take could be automatically signed and later on pulled by the gov. by revoking the signature. Now extending this to basic text, images, VR?, and whatever new mediaformats there will be in the future. I highly recommend watching video where a tablet from North-Korea gets inspected. It explains how NK keeps control of its citizens. https://youtu.be/fAtWwadP6CY https://youtu.be/fAtWwadP6CY
  - ascagnel_ 9y ago
    I only mentioned HTTPS in the sense that browsers now actively push users away from unsecured transport connections. And please provide some example of any browser vendor making moves to block/delist unsigned videos/photos for _any_ reason.
conductr 9y ago
I'm not knowledgeable enough to fully disagree. However, I do not feel it is the browsers job to ignore a potentially useful technology (albeit for some evil media companies) because you have a distribution/marketing problem with your own content. I think they will instead include this tech and make it usable for those who want it and continue supporting non-DRM media for those who don't want it. They're not going to block your ability to share your content without DRM.
- mimsee 9y ago
  > They're not going to block your ability to share your content without DRM. Of course not. Then they would block all of YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo along with all other video sharing platforms, not to mention adult ones. It would hit home too hard to require DRM be installed right away. But on the long run?
  - tdy721 9y ago
    adult ones See: Great Britian I would love to see how that's working out for them, but even to wonder about the experiment borders on paedophilia. This is a tough nut to crack. (punintended...)
floatboth 9y ago
> Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content This statement is SO RIDICULOUS it just broke my brain. How?! Why?! Even the evil movie companies don't want to prevent you from sharing your home video online.

saganus 9y ago

But how long will it take for websites to be delivered with DRM so they can't be archived,scraped, saved to disk, screenshot, etc? I agree that it's "only" a step in that direction, but this can snowball and get ugly pretty fast.

tdy721 9y ago
I feel you've brought the Browsers (Software, layer 5+) to an ISP fight (Layer 1-4). One that the 99% lost a long time ago. This has been snowballing for a very long time, I feel that momentum is minimal. This snowball is being pushed by pure force. Power! Unlimited Power! -Darth Sidious
- saganus 9y ago
  Yeah, maybe. But I think it's still a possibility. Never underestimate companies that want to "innovate". I mean, standardizing a DRM API on browsers is probably going to bring us a lot of new "tools" which people will try to use for a lot of different things, and I can very easily imagine they will explore the possibility of paywalls and such. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that sometimes layers don't seem to be as separate as we engineers would like them to be.

appleflaxen 9y ago

this is just the first step down a slippery slope. and it _is_ a slippery slope. are you really going to _not_ use gmail and google maps because you can't see the source code? of course you're not. but is it beneficial for google to lock their code up behind a DRM blob? of course it is. so there is every incentive in the world for web pages to be made proprietary, and no incentive at all for users to put up a fight (which is why this first step is so important: because it's being made at the level of technologists, who supposably have the insight to know why it's important). but after this, the progression will be slow, but relentless, toward a closed web. Even if a subset of ideological wackos decide to fight... they're just ideological wackos. Stallman was right, and this is the exact same thing playing out again on a distributed medium.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
floatboth 9y ago
> is it beneficial for google to lock their code up behind a DRM blob? of course it is. No, it's not. Their code is locked behind… uh… A SERVER. You could never see the server side code, and it's always been that way. They do not give a flying fuck about people looking at their JavaScript UI code! That code is really, really NOT where the value is. The value is in the service — the databases full of data, the user accounts.