7 ms·
FreedomHTML
- arcatek 13y agoWe should not have to label our websites 'FreedomHTML' because we don't use some APIs. Those are the websites which use these specific features which should be called 'SomethingElseHTML'. I really hope that browser vendors will at least require some kind of explicit opt-in for borderline APIs such as EME.
- lukifer 13y agoWe manage to do just fine right now with browsers simply opting out of supporting certain web standards.
- samwillis 13y agoI just don't get this obsession with not letting anything like DRM into an open spec for HTML. Copyright owners have every right to use DRM and in many cases thats the only way we are ever going to get access that content without monstrosities like Flash. I'm not arguing that DRM works or that we shouldn't be allowed to "remove" it from media we legitimately own (we should be allowed to) but we shouldn't decide that DRM is evil because it isn't. Its the legislation around it that is, DRM is necessary to help prevent capsule mass piracy, we all know it isnt perfect and never can be but if it lets me watch a film or tv show without flash or some other junk then I'm all for there being hooks to enable it in HTML.
- phaer 13y agoWell, in my opinion DRM itself stays evil as long as most (all?) implementations are stopping me from consuming legally obtained content on free systems.
- LatvjuAvs 13y agoYou are thief.
- ivanca 13y agoIt is evil in proportions never seen before; its blocking access to whats in _your_ computer; under your logic a lot of pdfs shouldn't be allowed to be download and ads shouldn't be allowed to be hidden. I don't know about you but I vote for piracy any day if this is the price for "legal streaming". I really hope Firefox complies but provides a (obviously non-compliant) way of allowing the user to download the content even if it means legal trouble for them (keeping in mind that donations to fight this fight will not be scarce).
- Drakim 13y agoThe sort of DRM that is being pushed for HTML is going about it the entirely wrong way. It will almost certainly result in window-only binary blobs, which is directly in opposition to what HTML should be about.
- ivanca 13y ago"HTML should be about"; you mean "Internet should be about"; why to stop at DRM? lets create one for text so nobody can copy our news articles; lets create one for pictures so you can't download our precious photos; anyone supporting this is not seeing the gigantic wormhole it will create just for the sake of watching "Arrested Development" in your web browsing devices (BTW, even TV will be more open than Internet because AFAIK they can't restrict what you record from your TV)
- dwild 13y agoI guess you are against <embed> then?
- kaoD 13y agoThe web doesn't need big media. Big media needs the web.
- DanBC 13y agoCriminal offence carrying prison sentence for many countries, probably including the US. Who's going to risk it? EDIT: Here's the global treaty in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention) which links to local laws. EDIT: The famous example case is of DeCSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS). That's relevant because before DeCSS there wasn't anyway for people running Linux to watch legally bought DVDs.
- pekk 13y agoand if there is a single flaw in HTML DRM, then the vendors will move away from it anyway because DRM is a constant arms race. This is a terrible way to build standards
- pjscott 13y agoI don't know if you've looked at the list of stuff on the Pirate Bay recently, but if you have, you know that piracy is rampant and trivial -- and all the DRM in the world hasn't been able to change that.
- reidrac 13y agoYep, that's the point. DRM won't stop piracy, but it will make things harder for legit users (my favourite is: DRM requires _whatever_ and Linux is not supported).
- yk 13y agoIMHO the problem is first of all aesthetically, digital rights minimization does not belong into an open standard. And on the more technical side, the encrypted media extension working draft [1] says itself: This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems[...] Translation, it is not content without flash, they are adding another API, to interact with a flash like plugin. So it archives precisely nothing compared to flash, except to grow the attack surface of the browser.
- icebraining 13y agowe shouldn't decide that DRM is evil because it isn't This isn't exactly an argument. DRM is software working against its own users. Why should we embrace it? DRM is necessary to help prevent capsule mass piracy It doesn't, and even if it did, that end doesn't justify the means. if it lets me watch a film or tv show without flash or some other junk then I'm all for [it] I'd rather those who support DRMed media to be inconvenienced; maybe they'll actually stop buying crap and funding the companies that try to push terrible legislation. And if not, at least I don't get DRM in my software.
- rtpg 13y ago>DRM is software working against its own users. Why should we embrace it? Steam is DRM. Steam enables me to download my games from all over the place, because their DRM knows that I bought the game at least once. Not always a hinderance
- Semaphor 13y agoSometimes I feel I'm on repeat here but Steam isn't necessarily DRM. There are several DRM free games on Steam that use it only for distribution.
- talmand 13y agoCan you play these free games on Steam without an account that have terms placed upon it? Sorry, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to convince me that Steam is not DRM. If a game that has no third party DRM is purchased on Steam then Steam is required to be running to play that game. It limits you in how you play the game in numerous ways in relation to your account, such as one computer at a time. You cannot buy one copy of a game and give your friend access to your Steam account so the two of you can play multiplayer in that one copy of the game at the same time on the same account. If you break the terms and agreements of Steam and have your account locked then you lose access to all your games, free or purchased. Steam is a form of rights management. Not that I have a problem with Steam as I am currently a happy customer.
- judofyr 13y ago> DRM is necessary to help prevent capsule mass piracy Nope: https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- TheRubyist 13y agoMoney will always stop freedom.
- chris_wot 13y agoWhat if I buy my way out of jail? Works in Monopoly. I'm usually the Cannon.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lifthrasiir 13y agoThe website doesn't work at the moment. It wasn't caught by Google's cache either. Any mirrors?
- yk 13y agoSince no one else is writing the obligatory HN "I like the idea, but it will not work." comment, here it is. I really like the general idea of a way to validate websites for privacy issues. In the best case they should even do this client side. But I think that they need to figure out two rather hard problems, one economically and one rather philosophical. The economical problem is, why should any web site owner use it. I simply do not see a strong incentive. And the philosophical is, what is actually meant by freedom? I see a lot of edge cases besides DRM which are sketchy, like user tracking. But to reliably stop user tracking, it is likely necessary to ban cookies ( which have of course a lot legitimate uses). And JS is a different can of worms, it can be used to spy on the user. The list goes on, iframes and third party content? Does freedom HTML get tainted by it?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- alipang 13y agoPhilosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom. A content creator has the right to stipulate whatever contractual conditions she prefers in order for you to partake of the content she's produced. If you don't like it, don't watch it. That being said, it's another matter of what actually constitutes good business, likely there are not really any business advantages to DRM. You could also definitely make a case for this idea as a good method of consumer empowerment. I'd just prefer if they didn't pretend that this has anything to do with "freedom" or liberty. Bad idea != attack on freedom
- yk 13y ago> Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom. But not being allowed to control my own property is. And this is specifically what DRM is supposed to do, it prevents me to switch the bits in my RAM in the way I want to. And this was precisely my point, a important part of the standard depends on the precise meaning of freedom.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- belorn 13y agoWhile I doubt this will work, at least its a first step before people threaten to fork the standard. Thus, it gives W3C time and perspective on what the future could become for HTML. To run and view DRM content, you must use closed and by extension, proprietary software. That has always meant increased costs in either price (license) or performance. If one sufficient popular product refuses to pay that cost, the web will become splinted into groups of working vs non-working websites for a subset of users. Given that every company has a incentive to decrease costs, this is just a matter of time. Hopefully W3C will realize that this is not a future they wish to have.
- rimantas 13y agoYou can fork standard till the cows come home, the only thing that matters is what the browser vendors do. I am not sure about the relevance/importance of the w3c either, given the history of HTML5 which was born as Web Application 1.0 outside of w3c and partly out of the frustration caused by that organisation.
- onli 13y agoTell me which doctype to use, add the support into chrome and firefox (which is basically an "if doctype htmlFree;then do not load drm; fi") and I will use this tomorrow.
- Zr40 13y agoYou don't need a special doctype for that. Just don't include any DRM if you don't want to include any DRM.
- AshleysBrain 13y agoWhat does this achieve? If a profile only omits features, then browsers that do support EME and other omitted features therefore also support FreedomHTML. So if Chrome supports EME, they can still say they support 100% of the FreedomHTML profile.
- pilif 13y agoWhat I don't get about the DRM issue: If there's no DRM possible with the video tag, then it's IMHO more likely that big content owners won't use the video tag than it is likely that they will go DRM free. Too many workable alternatives to <video> exist. They might not work as well (not provide as much DOM integration, use more CPU power), but they do work. So for me the question is: What is more important to us? Getting rid of plugins that are a hassle to keep up-to-date and open a whole lot of privacy and security issues? Or being idealists about keeping media free of DRM? As long as a lot of media is served using plugins, browser vendors can't disable plugins (just like MS had to back-pedal with cutting plugin support in Win8), as long as <video> and <audio> don't support DRM, media will be shown using plugins. A way to break the cycle and get rid of the plugins (which is a much worse issue than DRMed content IMHO) is to allow content publishers to use native browser features and a way to allow them to do that is to allow DRM.
- davorak 13y agoOne of the great things about the web and it's user interface is that I can edit it on the fly. I can change the css, I can download an adblock plugin, I can selectively change pretty much any aspect of it. If those adds are served through EMR mixed in with content then I can no longer filter the adds from the content. I can no longer style the content the way I want either. > A way to break the cycle and get rid of the plugins (which is a much worse issue than DRMed content IMHO) is to allow content publishers to use native browser features and a way to allow them to do that is to allow DRM. What alternative solutions do you see? If there are no other solution what are the consequences user will face?
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago>Getting rid of plugins EME doesn't get rid of plugins. It just introduces a new class of proprietary plugins. Stick with Flash, I say. At least it's useful for more than just DRM.