8 ms·

This is a bit of an exaggeration, we have had content like this on the web for years with proprietary technologies like flash, silverlight ,activeX and highly o

by jiggy2011 13y ago

This is a bit of an exaggeration, we have had content like this on the web for years with proprietary technologies like flash, silverlight ,activeX and highly obfuscated JS. Not to mention the amount of content locked into walled gardens and proprietary app stores etc. The W3 proposals suggested do not in fact mandate browser vendors implement any DRM scheme to remain 100% standards compliant. This is myth that gets repeated on HN surprisingly often. The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details. The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is not already.

jonahx 13y ago
>The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details. Sure, but we don't have to aid them in their quest >The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is not already. The practical effect of being able to deliver DRM'd content to every non-technical web user, without first having to get that user to download and install your proprietary software, is just massive. This is one of the biggest falloff points in the conversion funnel, so it makes this new delivery method highly attractive. As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive. The practical effects of this are far reaching imo.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  It seems odd for HN to be in favour of making technology & content marginally less accessible simply to spite people. Perhaps there exists a class of people who wanted to implement DRM on all of their content but were just waiting for the W3s blessing but such a class will be extremely small. Most of the DRM you see comes from mandates from big content firms, most other people could give less of a shit.
  - pgeorgi 13y ago
    DRM'd content isn't accessible and that's the entire problem. Adding a standardized hook for DRM modules to use creates the illusion that things got accessible that previously weren't. Try exercising your fair-use rights on those DRM'd bits for example.
- asadotzler 13y ago
  "As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive." And the businesses (Hollywood) with the content that Web users want have done that math and decided that DRM through plug-ins and native apps is an EXCELLENT system and they're happy to keep mandating it forever. If Plug-ins go away, as they're slowly but surely doing, then native apps will be the only place to get this content. Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work."
  - jonahx 13y ago
    > Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." I don't cringe at that, it's just the way it is. But I promise you no-install browser delivery of DRM'd content which "just works" is very valuable to those businesses. People grab the thing within arm's reach. Sure, if there isn't anything in arm's reach a decent amount of them will still walk across the room for what they want, but I think that's besides the point.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." And in this scenario (i.e., the way things are now), someone like me, who doesn't give a shit about "content" but does care about the Web itself, can still avoid DRM by not installing the plugins, not using the silo'd App Stores, etc. But if my browser is the silo'd plugin/App Store, I'm SOL. That is why all this matters: it makes DRM and all of the closed source nastiness that goes with it the default, instead of something people have to choose. I think that's a very, very bad idea.
    - takluyver 13y ago
fafner 13y ago
If Digital Restrictions Management gets added to HTML5 then it makes it far easier for content hosts to add restrictions. This is a huge risk. But more importantly the idea of HTML5 was to get rid of proprietary closed source plugins like Flash. Adding DRM to HTML5 will make it rely on proprietary closed source plugins. I hope the W3C reconsiders. If somebody feels the need for DRM then they should implement their own stuff outside of the open web.
makomk 13y ago
Browser vendors don't have to implement any DRM scheme, but they will and sites will use them. What this means in practice is that there will be 100% standards compliant, pure HTML5 websites that can only legally be rendered in specific, proprietary browsers. The stated purpose of HTML5 EME is to make it a criminal offence under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause to develop an unauthorised browser or extension that displays the protected content. If anything this is worse than proprietary plugins because those used documented APIs that any browser could support, whereas this is integrated into the web browser itself.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  If anything it's the opposite. Defining a standard interface for content decryption allows such a system to be browser agnostic. You install a module and it works in any browser which implements the spec, whether proprietary or open source.
  - jeltz 13y ago
    Yes, but it wont be OS agnostic. So it might work on all browsers on Windows but not in any one FreeBSD.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      Not true at all, there is nothing in the spec that mandates the use of any particular OS.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        Is there anything in the spec that ensures compatibility with more than one OS?
        jiggy2011 13y ago
        Is there anything in the TCP/IP spec that ensures compatibility with more than one OS?

jonahx 13y ago

>The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details. Sure, but we don't have to aid them in their quest >The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is not already. The practical effect of being able to deliver DRM'd content to every non-technical web user, without first having to get that user to download and install your proprietary software, is just massive. This is one of the biggest falloff points in the conversion funnel, so it makes this new delivery method highly attractive. As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive. The practical effects of this are far reaching imo.

jiggy2011 13y ago
It seems odd for HN to be in favour of making technology & content marginally less accessible simply to spite people. Perhaps there exists a class of people who wanted to implement DRM on all of their content but were just waiting for the W3s blessing but such a class will be extremely small. Most of the DRM you see comes from mandates from big content firms, most other people could give less of a shit.
- pgeorgi 13y ago
  DRM'd content isn't accessible and that's the entire problem. Adding a standardized hook for DRM modules to use creates the illusion that things got accessible that previously weren't. Try exercising your fair-use rights on those DRM'd bits for example.
asadotzler 13y ago
"As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive." And the businesses (Hollywood) with the content that Web users want have done that math and decided that DRM through plug-ins and native apps is an EXCELLENT system and they're happy to keep mandating it forever. If Plug-ins go away, as they're slowly but surely doing, then native apps will be the only place to get this content. Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work."
- jonahx 13y ago
  > Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." I don't cringe at that, it's just the way it is. But I promise you no-install browser delivery of DRM'd content which "just works" is very valuable to those businesses. People grab the thing within arm's reach. Sure, if there isn't anything in arm's reach a decent amount of them will still walk across the room for what they want, but I think that's besides the point.
- pdonis 13y ago
  If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." And in this scenario (i.e., the way things are now), someone like me, who doesn't give a shit about "content" but does care about the Web itself, can still avoid DRM by not installing the plugins, not using the silo'd App Stores, etc. But if my browser is the silo'd plugin/App Store, I'm SOL. That is why all this matters: it makes DRM and all of the closed source nastiness that goes with it the default, instead of something people have to choose. I think that's a very, very bad idea.
  - takluyver 13y ago

fafner 13y ago

If Digital Restrictions Management gets added to HTML5 then it makes it far easier for content hosts to add restrictions. This is a huge risk. But more importantly the idea of HTML5 was to get rid of proprietary closed source plugins like Flash. Adding DRM to HTML5 will make it rely on proprietary closed source plugins. I hope the W3C reconsiders. If somebody feels the need for DRM then they should implement their own stuff outside of the open web.

makomk 13y ago

Browser vendors don't have to implement any DRM scheme, but they will and sites will use them. What this means in practice is that there will be 100% standards compliant, pure HTML5 websites that can only legally be rendered in specific, proprietary browsers. The stated purpose of HTML5 EME is to make it a criminal offence under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause to develop an unauthorised browser or extension that displays the protected content. If anything this is worse than proprietary plugins because those used documented APIs that any browser could support, whereas this is integrated into the web browser itself.

jiggy2011 13y ago
If anything it's the opposite. Defining a standard interface for content decryption allows such a system to be browser agnostic. You install a module and it works in any browser which implements the spec, whether proprietary or open source.
- jeltz 13y ago
  Yes, but it wont be OS agnostic. So it might work on all browsers on Windows but not in any one FreeBSD.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Not true at all, there is nothing in the spec that mandates the use of any particular OS.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Is there anything in the spec that ensures compatibility with more than one OS?
      - jiggy2011 13y ago
        Is there anything in the TCP/IP spec that ensures compatibility with more than one OS?