9 ms·

This is all so ridiculous, rtmp for instance is as secure a DRM as its ever gonna get and that never stopped me from downloading a stream. Even things like HDMI

by rlx0x 13y ago

This is all so ridiculous, rtmp for instance is as secure a DRM as its ever gonna get and that never stopped me from downloading a stream. Even things like HDMI/HDCP is broken beyond repair. And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?! This whole concept of DRM is just idiotic, its enough if one guy breaks the DRM and releases it. Why should I even bother booting a propertary OS (windows) and buying a stream everytime I want to watch something if I can just download a release and watch it, and its not like they can do anything against that either. Why should I bother and buy HDCP capable new hardware, bother with proprietary NSA-compliant US software I much rather buy the DVD, trash it and just download it in a open and free format (I don't even bother with ripping (and breaking CSS) anymore).

gsnedders 13y ago
What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. Not working on this isn't an option — take the W3C out of the picture and it'll still be done, quite probably behind closed doors, which is even worse for the web; MS, Apple, and Google are all likely going to ship this whether the W3C specifies this or not; for better or for worse, it is likely to become part of the de-facto Web Platform. And if you read the lists (as opposed to overly emotional hearsay calling them stupid), you'll realize their concern isn't so much piracy in and of itself (they recognize DRM can and will be broken — they aren't blind), but rather "casual piracy", as it were, ripping a disc having had it lent to you, for example. The aim is to make it sufficiently inconvenient to work-around that that doesn't happen, not that it avoids release on P2P networks and the like.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Are you sure about that? The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it, at least on the list. Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows? And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being promptly shot down?
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    (Disclaimer: I haven't read the lists actively in quite a while, and no longer have access to Member-Only lists.) There have been votes about whether this is in-scope of the AC. As you can tell by work continuing, the vote passed. How many abstained (explicitly or by not voting)? I cannot remember, and cannot check. The requirement to merely make it more difficult, but not impossible, has been stated on several occasions. Forgive me for not looking up references for this, but it's almost 4am and I ought to sleep. :) And they believe, rightly or not, non-user-modifiable client components are needed to make this sufficiently difficult — as otherwise someone could easily make a tool to make it sufficiently easy to violate the licensing terms (assuming, for now, all content is licensed — which is itself questionable; if it's not then in many jurisdictions they cannot place restrictions).
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      In which case they're being supportive in private, and utterly quiet in public. That's a neat trick in itself. But I don't think it's an issue of what they believe, it's an issue of what the actual licensing terms are. Those are the real requirements, and so far they've not been made available.
      - gsnedders 13y ago
        I don't think there's any WG which includes all W3C members — most members simply don't care enough to wish to dedicate resources to every WG, not to mention the extra obligations it makes them take on via the patent policy. The situation isn't at all unusual — just a more contentious subject matter!
        duncan_bayne 13y ago
        That's true ... but this is a most fundamental issue. I'd have expected that the companies that have benefited historically from the Open Web would be at least a little concerned. Like Google. Oh, wait.
- higherpurpose 13y ago
  > What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. When they accept organizations like MPAA on their board, no surprise this is the sort of decisions we get, and the sort of decisions we can expect for the web standards from now on. W3C has been corrupted, and it's only going to get worse for the web if people keep listening to them.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    No, it's perfectly reasonable that the MPAA be allowed membership. It'd be worse if the W3C got to choose who could join. The issue is the 'crisis of representation' - i.e., some voices are heard more clearly than others.
- Fasebook 13y ago
  It becomes the defacto standard when it's adopted by developers, it's adopted by developers when their boss hires them to adopt it, they hire people to develop it because they are assured a return on their investment. Why are they assured a return on their investment? Because they decide what the standards are. It's the same old regulatory capture game since before, but now it's divorced from government support.
mcot2 13y ago
I don't care how it gets done, but if we need this to finally kill off flash than I am for it. This problem is solved technically so let's just get it done. Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem? I don't understand why purists on the email list end up holding up something that will ultimately be a positive thing from a number of perspectives. Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls.
- w-ll 13y ago
  > Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem? Executives are never satisfied, and the world doesn't revolve around them. Should we allow tapping of our communications because it satisfies our leaders. > Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls. And what do any of these have to do with DRM? In fact, I can guarantee DRM will offer more vulnerable entry points, require more battery on mobile devices, and not be script/ux friendly.
  - mcot2 13y ago
    They will be satisfied enough to offer HTML5 video. The point is killing off Flash. It is a lot easier to secure a smallish DRM module in a browser than a gigantic environment like Flash.
    - fpgeek 13y ago
      Not really. "Securing" a DRM plugin means "securing" the browser it runs in (otherwise it will be cracked by the browser lying to it about whether DRMed media is being played "securely"), which means "securing" the OS the browser runs on and so on...
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Because those purists - and I'm one - care very deeply about the principles of the Open Web, the very principles that are touted on the W3C website itself. The fundamental issue is this: up until now, anyone with the will to do so and a general purpose computer could build a browser that could display all the content on a W3C-standards-compliant website. If EME + CDM are endorsed, then that will no longer be true. The Open Web will be a thing of the past. That is why we're trying to prevent this from going forward in its current form.
ihsw 13y ago
> And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?! Thinking isn't required to accept your paycheck -- in fact damaging the reputation of the W3C is their goal. There are fewer ways to fragment the standards of the internet better than undermining the integrity of the dominant standards committee by infiltrating it and proposing crap to be standardized. Since the MPAA and her malicious allies are standing members then their propositions are considered seriously as a matter of policy, regardless of the stated goals and their actual effect. Preventing piracy is at the bottom of a very long list of power that DRM provides, and maintaining control over your content distribution networks is at the top. The two have some overlap, but it's extremely limited (pirates don't pay, but content distributors do, so they will squeeze the distributors as much as they can).
Fasebook 13y ago
W3C's reputation went out the window in the minds of all serious software developers with the concept of HTML5's "living standard" aka, no standard. This is the kind of standards we can expect from a standards body in the industry. The only solution is to start again from scratch, maybe on top of TCP/IP only.
- robin_reala 13y ago
  W3C have never been an official standards body; the most they’ve ever made is a ‘Recommendation’. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
- rimantas 13y ago
  Standards matter only as much as the implementations adhere to them. Making HTML living standard thas the right thing to do, because only this really reflects the reality: browser vendors implementing differnt bits of the functionality described. Feel free to start from the scrach.
  - Fasebook 13y ago
    and now they are changing HTML5 to "HTML," the purpose is clear, to sew more confusion into the so called standard and hide the debacle that is w3c. "this reality reflect the reality" please... why have a standard at all then. What a joke and perversion of terms. Orwell would be proud.

by rlx0x 13y ago

gsnedders 13y ago

What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. Not working on this isn't an option — take the W3C out of the picture and it'll still be done, quite probably behind closed doors, which is even worse for the web; MS, Apple, and Google are all likely going to ship this whether the W3C specifies this or not; for better or for worse, it is likely to become part of the de-facto Web Platform. And if you read the lists (as opposed to overly emotional hearsay calling them stupid), you'll realize their concern isn't so much piracy in and of itself (they recognize DRM can and will be broken — they aren't blind), but rather "casual piracy", as it were, ripping a disc having had it lent to you, for example. The aim is to make it sufficiently inconvenient to work-around that that doesn't happen, not that it avoids release on P2P networks and the like.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
Are you sure about that? The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it, at least on the list. Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows? And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being promptly shot down?
- gsnedders 13y ago
  (Disclaimer: I haven't read the lists actively in quite a while, and no longer have access to Member-Only lists.) There have been votes about whether this is in-scope of the AC. As you can tell by work continuing, the vote passed. How many abstained (explicitly or by not voting)? I cannot remember, and cannot check. The requirement to merely make it more difficult, but not impossible, has been stated on several occasions. Forgive me for not looking up references for this, but it's almost 4am and I ought to sleep. :) And they believe, rightly or not, non-user-modifiable client components are needed to make this sufficiently difficult — as otherwise someone could easily make a tool to make it sufficiently easy to violate the licensing terms (assuming, for now, all content is licensed — which is itself questionable; if it's not then in many jurisdictions they cannot place restrictions).
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    In which case they're being supportive in private, and utterly quiet in public. That's a neat trick in itself. But I don't think it's an issue of what they believe, it's an issue of what the actual licensing terms are. Those are the real requirements, and so far they've not been made available.
    - gsnedders 13y ago
      I don't think there's any WG which includes all W3C members — most members simply don't care enough to wish to dedicate resources to every WG, not to mention the extra obligations it makes them take on via the patent policy. The situation isn't at all unusual — just a more contentious subject matter!
      - duncan_bayne 13y ago
        That's true ... but this is a most fundamental issue. I'd have expected that the companies that have benefited historically from the Open Web would be at least a little concerned. Like Google. Oh, wait.
higherpurpose 13y ago
> What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. When they accept organizations like MPAA on their board, no surprise this is the sort of decisions we get, and the sort of decisions we can expect for the web standards from now on. W3C has been corrupted, and it's only going to get worse for the web if people keep listening to them.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  No, it's perfectly reasonable that the MPAA be allowed membership. It'd be worse if the W3C got to choose who could join. The issue is the 'crisis of representation' - i.e., some voices are heard more clearly than others.
Fasebook 13y ago
It becomes the defacto standard when it's adopted by developers, it's adopted by developers when their boss hires them to adopt it, they hire people to develop it because they are assured a return on their investment. Why are they assured a return on their investment? Because they decide what the standards are. It's the same old regulatory capture game since before, but now it's divorced from government support.

mcot2 13y ago

I don't care how it gets done, but if we need this to finally kill off flash than I am for it. This problem is solved technically so let's just get it done. Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem? I don't understand why purists on the email list end up holding up something that will ultimately be a positive thing from a number of perspectives. Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls.

w-ll 13y ago
> Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem? Executives are never satisfied, and the world doesn't revolve around them. Should we allow tapping of our communications because it satisfies our leaders. > Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls. And what do any of these have to do with DRM? In fact, I can guarantee DRM will offer more vulnerable entry points, require more battery on mobile devices, and not be script/ux friendly.
- mcot2 13y ago
  They will be satisfied enough to offer HTML5 video. The point is killing off Flash. It is a lot easier to secure a smallish DRM module in a browser than a gigantic environment like Flash.
  - fpgeek 13y ago
    Not really. "Securing" a DRM plugin means "securing" the browser it runs in (otherwise it will be cracked by the browser lying to it about whether DRMed media is being played "securely"), which means "securing" the OS the browser runs on and so on...
duncan_bayne 13y ago
Because those purists - and I'm one - care very deeply about the principles of the Open Web, the very principles that are touted on the W3C website itself. The fundamental issue is this: up until now, anyone with the will to do so and a general purpose computer could build a browser that could display all the content on a W3C-standards-compliant website. If EME + CDM are endorsed, then that will no longer be true. The Open Web will be a thing of the past. That is why we're trying to prevent this from going forward in its current form.

ihsw 13y ago

> And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?! Thinking isn't required to accept your paycheck -- in fact damaging the reputation of the W3C is their goal. There are fewer ways to fragment the standards of the internet better than undermining the integrity of the dominant standards committee by infiltrating it and proposing crap to be standardized. Since the MPAA and her malicious allies are standing members then their propositions are considered seriously as a matter of policy, regardless of the stated goals and their actual effect. Preventing piracy is at the bottom of a very long list of power that DRM provides, and maintaining control over your content distribution networks is at the top. The two have some overlap, but it's extremely limited (pirates don't pay, but content distributors do, so they will squeeze the distributors as much as they can).

Fasebook 13y ago

W3C's reputation went out the window in the minds of all serious software developers with the concept of HTML5's "living standard" aka, no standard. This is the kind of standards we can expect from a standards body in the industry. The only solution is to start again from scratch, maybe on top of TCP/IP only.

robin_reala 13y ago
W3C have never been an official standards body; the most they’ve ever made is a ‘Recommendation’. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
rimantas 13y ago
Standards matter only as much as the implementations adhere to them. Making HTML living standard thas the right thing to do, because only this really reflects the reality: browser vendors implementing differnt bits of the functionality described. Feel free to start from the scrach.
- Fasebook 13y ago
  and now they are changing HTML5 to "HTML," the purpose is clear, to sew more confusion into the so called standard and hide the debacle that is w3c. "this reality reflect the reality" please... why have a standard at all then. What a joke and perversion of terms. Orwell would be proud.