6 ms·

The hardware and the OS will hold the DRM, as far as I understand. That means that if say pirates break the DRM on Windows, Microsoft can patch it by next Tuesd

by devx 13y ago

The hardware and the OS will hold the DRM, as far as I understand. That means that if say pirates break the DRM on Windows, Microsoft can patch it by next Tuesday. That being said DRM by default in browsers (through EME) is probably the end of the "open web" - or at the very least the end of a "clean open web", meaning that everything will need to be hacked and cracked to make it work. Want to copy text or an image from a website? You'll have to find the crack for that website. Not to mention that doing that will be soon declared illegal (if it's not already from the moment DRM is applied to something).

w0rd-driven 13y ago
This. I don't get why so many comments gloss over the fact that this isn't just about Netflix types of content, but something as simple as "view source" becomes banned outright. Its a step above when sites restrict right clicks because damn that image/whatever is off the hizzy and needs "protection" Minification and obfuscation have often been enough so far but the slope we're sliding down is pretty steep and if TBL wants us at the bottom a lot of people are just going to follow suit. As someone who's finally embracing that development is increasingly being pushed to the web over native devices, I'm likely to be looking for yet another career shift (first from IT to software dev) before its all said and done. I do not look forward to debugging DRM when I already loathe minified JavaScript. Tooling is already abysmally slow in spite of Chrome's excellent dev tools (unmatched by any other browser or plugin IMO). While I do understand the concept of protecting IP, this measure is inherently flawed right out of the gate. I'd honestly rather keep archaic Flash and not-so-archaic Silverlight around because at least their tooling is decent. I can't wait another 10+ years for this to catch up because everyone is foolishly starting from 0, not building on their successes (however much or little you define).
- takluyver 13y ago
  Comments 'gloss over it' because that's not what this fight is about. EME does not allow disabling 'view source' (unless I've completely misunderstood it). It's a step down the DRM road, but assuming that taking one step that way means we'll inevitably go the rest of the way seems hyperbolic.
  - w0rd-driven 13y ago
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standard... is where I got the 'view source' line. If its hyperbolic, the EFF does a very good job of pushing it. I thought another article pointed blocking the command out in the spec but I could be totally wrong there. Even so, nothing is stopping anyone from building a dumb front end and placing the entirety of the logic in the DRM container. Netflix isn't an argument in countries where it doesn't apply, like much of the world. View source and the actual openness of the web would be that argument, however. If its a concoction made up by what the EFF believes this fight would go versus an actual result of the fight as it stands, then I sadly fell for it pretty hard. Its not a difficult leap to make but I'm definitely more interested in facts over opinion based on someone's failing attempt at predicting the future.
    - takluyver 13y ago
      I think the EFF is engaging in some FUD themselves on this. There's some other project exploring ways to protect source code of web applications, and the EFF suggests that, now that the W3C has touched some form of DRM, that will be able to push a way for sites to disable 'view source'. I don't think that's realistic - minification and copyright work well enough to protect JS code already. I'm disappointed that the EFF is resorting to scare tactics like this rather than debating the actual issue at hand.

by devx 13y ago

w0rd-driven 13y ago

This. I don't get why so many comments gloss over the fact that this isn't just about Netflix types of content, but something as simple as "view source" becomes banned outright. Its a step above when sites restrict right clicks because damn that image/whatever is off the hizzy and needs "protection" Minification and obfuscation have often been enough so far but the slope we're sliding down is pretty steep and if TBL wants us at the bottom a lot of people are just going to follow suit. As someone who's finally embracing that development is increasingly being pushed to the web over native devices, I'm likely to be looking for yet another career shift (first from IT to software dev) before its all said and done. I do not look forward to debugging DRM when I already loathe minified JavaScript. Tooling is already abysmally slow in spite of Chrome's excellent dev tools (unmatched by any other browser or plugin IMO). While I do understand the concept of protecting IP, this measure is inherently flawed right out of the gate. I'd honestly rather keep archaic Flash and not-so-archaic Silverlight around because at least their tooling is decent. I can't wait another 10+ years for this to catch up because everyone is foolishly starting from 0, not building on their successes (however much or little you define).

takluyver 13y ago
Comments 'gloss over it' because that's not what this fight is about. EME does not allow disabling 'view source' (unless I've completely misunderstood it). It's a step down the DRM road, but assuming that taking one step that way means we'll inevitably go the rest of the way seems hyperbolic.
- w0rd-driven 13y ago
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standard... is where I got the 'view source' line. If its hyperbolic, the EFF does a very good job of pushing it. I thought another article pointed blocking the command out in the spec but I could be totally wrong there. Even so, nothing is stopping anyone from building a dumb front end and placing the entirety of the logic in the DRM container. Netflix isn't an argument in countries where it doesn't apply, like much of the world. View source and the actual openness of the web would be that argument, however. If its a concoction made up by what the EFF believes this fight would go versus an actual result of the fight as it stands, then I sadly fell for it pretty hard. Its not a difficult leap to make but I'm definitely more interested in facts over opinion based on someone's failing attempt at predicting the future.
  - takluyver 13y ago
    I think the EFF is engaging in some FUD themselves on this. There's some other project exploring ways to protect source code of web applications, and the EFF suggests that, now that the W3C has touched some form of DRM, that will be able to push a way for sites to disable 'view source'. I don't think that's realistic - minification and copyright work well enough to protect JS code already. I'm disappointed that the EFF is resorting to scare tactics like this rather than debating the actual issue at hand.