4 ms·

Open source browsers where the only guiding light that led the web out of the darkness of an IE6 monopoly. And the WhatWGs HTML5 standard and the willingness of

by pyalot2 13y ago

Open source browsers where the only guiding light that led the web out of the darkness of an IE6 monopoly. And the WhatWGs HTML5 standard and the willingness of Open source browsers was the only thing that saved the W3C of complete obsolesence. Yet the W3C releases a standard that condemns Open source browsers to second class citizens. An Open Source browser such as Firefox, Chromium, Webkit etc. cannot support HTML-DRM, because the CDM (content decryption module) cannot be produced open source, and the proprietary blob that would implement it, cannot give any random program access to decrypt the encrypted content and dump it to disk. This ensures that only proprietary browsers will be able to support HTML-DRM. In that future that the W3C envisions, Open Source browsers will never be able to gain any traction, and a heterogenous browser landscape will not exist. Alternative browsers will just become known as "those browsers that don't work" when they fail to serve up movies, images, audio, fonts, and various other resources because they have been frozen out from doing so.

nemothekid 13y ago
This seems a little overblown. Firefox is the only fully open source browser to gain any significant traction, so HTML-DRM as the final blow to the "guiding light that led the web out of darkness" seems a little far-fetchd. (Nitpick: Webkit is not a browser, its a rendering engine) At the end of the day I'm having trouble understanding what this really means for the Web. Hollywood was never going to stop using DRM. With all the various syndication deals with DRM-clauses in Hollywood contracts, I doubt anyone was going to step up and fight for DRM removal when TWC is blacking out CBS over transmission fees. At the same time, I don't think HTML-DRM will cause Netflix to drop support for Firefox. What most likely will happen is there will be a shim. This whole thing seems like a giant charade for the w3c to strengthen its relevancy.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "At the end of the day I'm having trouble understanding what this really means for the Web" You already have a preview: Netflix using Silverlight, which shut out everyone who is not using a Microsoft-endorsed platform. You can bet that whatever Microsoft DRM is available on Windows will be used and will have the same effect: Microsoft will not make a version for any other OS, and Hollywood will not license its entertainment to anyone who is not using Microsoft's or Apple's DRM. Those of us who want to use free/libre software will just be SOL if we want to watch mainstream entertainment (legally). "At the same time, I don't think HTML-DRM will cause Netflix to drop support for Firefox" No, but it will not cause Netflix to add support for GNU/Linux or any of the other OSes they refuse to support. Who is going to develop a DRM system for an OS that allows its users to easily dump the core of any process? Even if someone did develop such a thing, why would Hollywood ever license their entertainment for it, knowing how easily a beginner-level user could circumvent it? Your reference to the TWC/CBS issue is apt. That is the future of the web of this kind of thing continues: with each step in the direction of appeasing Hollywood, we take a step towards converting the Web (and the greater Internet) into a fancy cable TV system. In other words, we are seeing a systematic effort to destroy the most open communication system of the computer age.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    "In other words, we are seeing a systematic effort to destroy the most open communication system of the computer age." I think you are severely overblowing this issue. If the web can survive through Sony implementing Rootkits as a form of DRM, I think the web can survive this. "Those of us who want to use free/libre software will just be SOL if we want to watch mainstream entertainment (legally)." Linux users are already shit out of luck. I don't need to speculate about that this means for Linux and the web, because any decision, W3C or not, would have left Linux users shit out of luck. Finally, I'm only concerned if this means anything at all for the web. Frankly, Netflix was never going to support a platform they couldn't add DRM to because Hollywood wouldn't license content to them if they did. At this point DRM is a legal formality to Hollywood, despite whether it works or not. The reason I brought up the TWC/CBS issue was to highlight how bad these contract negotiations can go. For example, a studio like Sony will syndicate Breaking Bad to AMC. In the boilerplate clause, part of the syndication deal will say "online distribution for this content needs to have DRM for 10 years", meaning until 2018, if you watch Breaking Bad online, there will need to be some form of DRM. For a network like AMC to argue this point, there would need to be huge monetary value for them because Sony will then use the no-DRM clause to demand more money from AMC. My point is whether or not DRM is actually effective, has nothing to do with the user and everything to do with sweetening contract deals for more dosh at this point. And nothing - except a mass migration to 100% open systems - will change that point. Despite what we all believe Hollywood isn't stupid, and I doubt most of these studio execs believe DRM is actually effective, after all TPB still exists. Now, given that Hollywood has been massively lucky in that 1.) TV/Film piracy is not nearly as popular as music piracy and 2.) Piracy hasn't forced Hollywood to give up on DRM, and that Hollywood was never going to support 100% open systems anyways - what does the w3c decision actually mean for the web? Netflix is unlikely to drop support for firefox, and any other open system didn't have the means to play Hollywood content anyways (legally). Just like how the WHATWG stepped around the W3C for not playing by their rules (even though the WHATWG's rules were better), the Hollywood will just step around the W3C rules if this didn't pass. However this did pass, and now has the overall direction of the web actually changed?
    - pyalot2 13y ago
- orangecat 13y ago
  Hollywood was never going to stop using DRM. I'm not sure of that at all. The RIAA was never going to release digital music with DRM, and CBS was never going to support HDTV without the broadcast flag. The copyright cartels may hold their customers in contempt, but they do like money.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    While we can't be completely sure of the future, I'm relatively confident that the w3c decision won't directly, and most likely indirectly effect whether or not Hollywood uses DRM.
    - pyalot2 13y ago
      The matter of the fact is that the W3C is the first organization to systematically cave in to content cartel demands. Do you honestly think that "the web" has fewer leverage than television networks? What the Web doesn't have is a unified front, a group of champions. The W3C should have been one of those champions, which makes the W3C curruption so extremel disapointing.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  > This seems a little overblown. Firefox is the only fully open source browser to gain any significant traction, so HTML-DRM as the final blow to the "guiding light that led the web out of darkness" seems a little far-fetchd. Firefox was what kept the web alive in the dark days of IE6 stagnation. Firefox was the first to adopt html5 features when microsoft wasn't. Numerous web features you take for granted today would not have been possible in a browser monopoly. > (Nitpick: Webkit is not a browser, its a rendering engine) Webkit is also a standalone distributable browser.

by pyalot2 13y ago

nemothekid 13y ago

This seems a little overblown. Firefox is the only fully open source browser to gain any significant traction, so HTML-DRM as the final blow to the "guiding light that led the web out of darkness" seems a little far-fetchd. (Nitpick: Webkit is not a browser, its a rendering engine) At the end of the day I'm having trouble understanding what this really means for the Web. Hollywood was never going to stop using DRM. With all the various syndication deals with DRM-clauses in Hollywood contracts, I doubt anyone was going to step up and fight for DRM removal when TWC is blacking out CBS over transmission fees. At the same time, I don't think HTML-DRM will cause Netflix to drop support for Firefox. What most likely will happen is there will be a shim. This whole thing seems like a giant charade for the w3c to strengthen its relevancy.

betterunix 13y ago
"At the end of the day I'm having trouble understanding what this really means for the Web" You already have a preview: Netflix using Silverlight, which shut out everyone who is not using a Microsoft-endorsed platform. You can bet that whatever Microsoft DRM is available on Windows will be used and will have the same effect: Microsoft will not make a version for any other OS, and Hollywood will not license its entertainment to anyone who is not using Microsoft's or Apple's DRM. Those of us who want to use free/libre software will just be SOL if we want to watch mainstream entertainment (legally). "At the same time, I don't think HTML-DRM will cause Netflix to drop support for Firefox" No, but it will not cause Netflix to add support for GNU/Linux or any of the other OSes they refuse to support. Who is going to develop a DRM system for an OS that allows its users to easily dump the core of any process? Even if someone did develop such a thing, why would Hollywood ever license their entertainment for it, knowing how easily a beginner-level user could circumvent it? Your reference to the TWC/CBS issue is apt. That is the future of the web of this kind of thing continues: with each step in the direction of appeasing Hollywood, we take a step towards converting the Web (and the greater Internet) into a fancy cable TV system. In other words, we are seeing a systematic effort to destroy the most open communication system of the computer age.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  "In other words, we are seeing a systematic effort to destroy the most open communication system of the computer age." I think you are severely overblowing this issue. If the web can survive through Sony implementing Rootkits as a form of DRM, I think the web can survive this. "Those of us who want to use free/libre software will just be SOL if we want to watch mainstream entertainment (legally)." Linux users are already shit out of luck. I don't need to speculate about that this means for Linux and the web, because any decision, W3C or not, would have left Linux users shit out of luck. Finally, I'm only concerned if this means anything at all for the web. Frankly, Netflix was never going to support a platform they couldn't add DRM to because Hollywood wouldn't license content to them if they did. At this point DRM is a legal formality to Hollywood, despite whether it works or not. The reason I brought up the TWC/CBS issue was to highlight how bad these contract negotiations can go. For example, a studio like Sony will syndicate Breaking Bad to AMC. In the boilerplate clause, part of the syndication deal will say "online distribution for this content needs to have DRM for 10 years", meaning until 2018, if you watch Breaking Bad online, there will need to be some form of DRM. For a network like AMC to argue this point, there would need to be huge monetary value for them because Sony will then use the no-DRM clause to demand more money from AMC. My point is whether or not DRM is actually effective, has nothing to do with the user and everything to do with sweetening contract deals for more dosh at this point. And nothing - except a mass migration to 100% open systems - will change that point. Despite what we all believe Hollywood isn't stupid, and I doubt most of these studio execs believe DRM is actually effective, after all TPB still exists. Now, given that Hollywood has been massively lucky in that 1.) TV/Film piracy is not nearly as popular as music piracy and 2.) Piracy hasn't forced Hollywood to give up on DRM, and that Hollywood was never going to support 100% open systems anyways - what does the w3c decision actually mean for the web? Netflix is unlikely to drop support for firefox, and any other open system didn't have the means to play Hollywood content anyways (legally). Just like how the WHATWG stepped around the W3C for not playing by their rules (even though the WHATWG's rules were better), the Hollywood will just step around the W3C rules if this didn't pass. However this did pass, and now has the overall direction of the web actually changed?
  - pyalot2 13y ago
orangecat 13y ago
Hollywood was never going to stop using DRM. I'm not sure of that at all. The RIAA was never going to release digital music with DRM, and CBS was never going to support HDTV without the broadcast flag. The copyright cartels may hold their customers in contempt, but they do like money.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  While we can't be completely sure of the future, I'm relatively confident that the w3c decision won't directly, and most likely indirectly effect whether or not Hollywood uses DRM.
  - pyalot2 13y ago
    The matter of the fact is that the W3C is the first organization to systematically cave in to content cartel demands. Do you honestly think that "the web" has fewer leverage than television networks? What the Web doesn't have is a unified front, a group of champions. The W3C should have been one of those champions, which makes the W3C curruption so extremel disapointing.
pyalot2 13y ago
> This seems a little overblown. Firefox is the only fully open source browser to gain any significant traction, so HTML-DRM as the final blow to the "guiding light that led the web out of darkness" seems a little far-fetchd. Firefox was what kept the web alive in the dark days of IE6 stagnation. Firefox was the first to adopt html5 features when microsoft wasn't. Numerous web features you take for granted today would not have been possible in a browser monopoly. > (Nitpick: Webkit is not a browser, its a rendering engine) Webkit is also a standalone distributable browser.