Hacker News Reader

I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil.

The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only be consumed by, say, the Apple app store.

That's also the reason why this will never fly. Even if/when the W3C gave in to these demands, browser makers other than Apple and Microsoft would never stand for it. And even if they did somehow, it would be trivial for the open source community to release one without those features.

I'm not saying the outrage is entirely misplaced, because it's important to keep an eye out for what those companies have planned for our future. But as far as the fear of actual threat is concerned this should not alarm anybody.

this push requires converting the web into a closed platform

How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.

Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are all open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. The whole thing is just not designed to disobey the user. Keep in mind that this would have to cover the entire chain, from the network connection all the way up to the screen you are allowed to play the content on.

For that kind of DRM to work, your browser would have to be turned into a black box that is difficult to inspect, designed to be controlled entirely from remote, and illegal to alter.

If this series of events were to unfold, closing the browser would not be done to benefit the content industry directly. They don't need that to deliver content, because they can always just put out an app and pump out their stuff that way. They can also just make a plugin if they want to deliver video content through the browser - which would possible with current technology today. That's not why they are proposing this. Instead this move would serve solely to restrict user freedom to use anything but approved apps for approved content.

So to make it clear why this outrage exists: there is absolutely no technical need to include this natively in HTML5. The proposal does not aim to give something to the content industry, it is instead designed to take something away from everybody else. That's not a subtle difference. But, as I said earlier, it's doubtful it will/could play out this way. The only way to achieve this "dream" is by making the web as it exists today illegal to use, and then enforce that ban through extensive ISP surveillance. In which case a DRM solution for HTML5 wouldn't matter anyway.

To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations.

ORLY? How does encryption work then? One could say "in order to properly encrypt your stuff, you actually need to make sure nobody is outside your window with binoculars", but that's not the job of encryption is it. I guess it would ultimately boil down to possession of private and public keys, and making it illegal to transmit those. So? As you said, they can deliver their stuff in proprietary apps already, what is lost when they use proprietary keys instead?

Yes, really. Encryption in the browser today works exactly the other way around. It's sole purpose is to ensure data integrity on my behalf as things are transmitted between me and my chosen endpoint. The endpoint is not protected from me, and I can do whatever I want with this data once it arrives in my browser. DRM would be the antithesis of that. The problem is not they keys, it's what they keys can control or not.

That you'd need a closed source browser or plugin to access the draconian DRM content that insists on protecting the render path wouldn't mean anyone would have to consume said DRM content, or use such a browser for anything else. As you said, they could as well "put out an app", they already do; and adding a "content protection provider", a black box ultimately, to a browser just turns that browser into that app. But, and that's kind of my point, it doesn't affect my browser in any way I can discern, at worst it would mean somtimes seeing "sorry, your browser (or lack of plugins/dongle/whatever) does not support playback of this content", as opposed to that page not being there in the first place.

They aren't trying to "properly" lock it down. They are trying to bring html5 up to the same level as current flash based solutions.

I'm pretty sure you can do that already. HTTP has authentication, HTTPS gives you content encryption, rate limiting can prevent content scraping, I mean if you really wanted to you could do something with canvas (the hardware acceleration stuff that's being worked on could even make it perform fairly well, I suppose). Its not the same way but it could give the same result.

You can't do it already. What you described is not the same level as current flash solutions.

Well, I'm not particularly familiar with DRM apart from not liking it. What exactly does flash do that makes the DRM-loving lawyers consider it acceptable? From my point of view the kind of control offered by HTTPS and normal browser authentication is enough but the MPAA and RIAA (or the BBC, for that matter) clearly don't agree.

In flash, the bits that are coming down over HTTPS are DRMed. If you save them to your local disk you can't play it directly.

YARLY! If you encrypt content, it's not DRM-protected. When you use a normal everyday encryption solution, you send me the encrypted data, encrypted with my public key and I decrypt it with my private key and then I CAN DO WHAT I WANT with it. That is what the entertainment companies want to protect against - the ability to move the plain bits once you have them decrypted. With any open-source software, you can change it to do whatever you want with the decrypted bits. Honestly, the only way for them to get what they want is to have a piece of special hardware, which you install in your pc, that does decryption of the media and outputs it only via secure connection to an a/v setup that contains a camera which does facial recognition to make sure only you are sitting in front of the PC.

Fortunately, that's still a bit too expensive to consider. Also, it will be broken by the first bored hacker with a soldering iron.

Most entertainment companies accept the current flash based solutions as sufficient. In this case they are trying to bring html5 to te same level as flash.

Exactly; closed source and patented.

I'm pretty sure something similar to Adobe Access can be implemented for html 5 without requiring us to close source browsers, or patent them. I fail to see why you think otherwise.

Because I still have faith that the W3C wouldn't sell out to a closed solution owned by a single company.

We're talking about a web standard, not some company's broken software.

They aren't talking about using adobe's software. They want to do something similar for html5.

And you expect them to stop there?

I don't think much of slippery slope arguments.

That aside, not having DRM for html5 would likely do more harm to the open web than not doing it. Take ABC for example, they only let you view their content through flash or through a native app. This hurts the open web more than giving them DRM in html5.

> I don't think much of slippery slope arguments.

They are already closing the "analog loophole" everywhere else with HDCP and DRM enabled theater projectors, it's pretty clear that's where "content owners" want to be.

That is not what the bbc is asking for here!

The current DRM proposal [1] requires specific platform-specific CDMs (content decryption modules) that are not prart of the the browser. Those can be anything, from an open source module with cross-platform support to (most likely) a closed-source binary distributed by the OS and not available for use by specific browsers.

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

More reading

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944 http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/unethical-html-video...

Today, you can build a browser that can render all content on the web that adheres to the open standards.

With DRM built in, you can adhere to the standards all you want, you still can't render all the content unless have access to the secret keys, which can only be granted to you by the powers-that-be.

The only viable client-software will be that controlled by a few major companies in cahoots with the content-industry, and they will dictate terms on the rest of us, tearing down whatever "open" is left. Average users are not going to install an open, non-DRM client if that doesn't allow them to use Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, BBC etcetera.

Thanks to "open", the total monopoly if Microsoft's IE6 was broken and the web moved forward. With DRM, that will no longer be a viable option. Google, Microsoft and Apple together will decide how we experience the web.

If you think "open" will still play a role in that, you must haven been living under a rock for the past 10 years. Even Google's love for "open" and "neutral" has been reduced to mostly marketing.

  > Today, you can build a browser that can render all content on the web that
  > adheres to the open standards.

Actually, if your browser would only show that kind of content you wouldn't see much. Very little content on the web follows any standard at all.

  > Google, Microsoft and Apple together will decide how
  > we experience the web

You forgot Mozilla. And anyone making web browsers. That how it always was, that how it always be: browsers vendors will decide that.

  > and they will dictate terms on the rest of us, tearing down whatever "open" is left.
  > Average users are not going to install an open, non-DRM client if that doesn't allow
  > them to use Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, BBC etcetera.

And there you have it: the amount of "whatever "open" left" is immensely bigger than all hulus and netflixes. I cannot see hulu and netflix anyway, does that mean I have no access to the open web already? What does it mean "non DRM" client anyway? The one that only shows DRM'ed content? Does this exist? Back in the days of ITMS selling DRMed audio content iTunes still could play any mp3 you threw at it, and it still can do the same today. Just because some client will allow you to play DRMed content it in no way means that it won't be able to play open content. And because of that all this outrage is quite moronic.

> If you think "open" will still play a role in that, you must haven been living under a rock > for the past 10 years. Even Google's love for "open" and "neutral" has been reduced to mostly marketing.

Yes, I do. Your argument is just stupid.

> You forgot Mozilla. And anyone making web browsers. That how it always was, that how it always be: browsers vendors will decide that.

Surely the implication was that Mozilla, and any other browser maker who does not or cannot support these locked-down content models, risk becoming irrelevant because the vast majority of people will use browsers that do support the protected content?

I'm alarmed. They can lobby to outlaw owning or distributing DRM-free browsers, just like the push to make DVD-ripping technology illegal.

I am not convinced of this analogy. What is illegal is not copying data off DVDs, it is breaking the DRM to do so. The difference is not obvious because most DVDs are protected by DRM, but that is not true for websites.

As another example, Flash (which is being directly replaced here): Apple happily ships browsers without it, users are already used to a video not working every now and then, and no one has ever pushed to outlaw browsers without Flash.

> What is illegal is not copying data off DVDs, it is breaking the DRM to do so.

Not quite. Depending on the reason for making the copy, both may be illegal. Remember that copying a DVD for certain purposes was illegal before DRM even existed.

> The difference is not obvious because most DVDs are protected by DRM, but that is not true for websites.

So does that mean one may legally copy an entire Website and post it somewhere else? This is where the argument breaks down. DRM only adds to the roster of illegal acts, it doesn't mean something not protected by DRM is fair game.

The web is still open by default and can always be made more closed by deliberate action, just like Flash is closed by default and can always be made more open by deliberate action.

People have implemented crypto algorithms in JS for over a decade which would enable this kind of thing if you really wanted to. DRM is just formalising it and again is not the default for video or audio.

(BTW I already posted BBC's position on this last week - no response http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5200917)

My argument, and I sent this too them when they were doing a consultation a while ago, is that they shouldn't be buying content that they can't use for public service purposes. We have many good sources of movies in the UK, and many of them are "free" at the point of use (ie advert funded). Let them show Madagascar, and while they do that the BBC can run some other program. They should remove themselves from the content purchasing market if the terms are too restrictive to allow them to meet their public remit. We don't /need/ these films on the BBC. They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead.

>They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead.

Better yet, take the money they're paying to run Madagascar and use it to fund more original BBC content.

Now every TV broadcast is digital, BBC3/4 are less 'ghetto' and more 'dumping grounds'

The counterargument is that, if you canvassed license fee payers, I bet more of them would care about seeing Madagascar without ads than about DRM issues. So should the BBC pursue what a small number of people loudly claim to be the 'public interest', or should they aim for what the public is interested in?

Thinking more strategically, the BBC needs some high profile popular things, including imported movies, to keep people on side. If they lose their popularity, it's only a matter of time before a politician wins votes by promising to slash the license fee.

"there is no way larger, and independent studios would allow their content uploaded DRM free."

Then I guess they do not get to have it on the BBC website. You know, assuming the BBC sticks to its guns, which they apparently have not.

It is not at all the case that every film they show that they do not make is on iplayer. Most films are not. Most the content they make is on iplayer, but not all content they don't make. Not all content is even available in the live streams, eg sport which has other rights.

I would be happy for only BBC-commissioned content to be available without DRM and the rest to be not available or use plugins. Or indeed I would be happy for the BBC to not broadcast the output of Hollywood etc which is easily available elsewhere commercially eg on Netflix or Sky. I do not think that showing "Madagascar" is really a public service...

>you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC iPlayer

Not if you're a license fee payer or a UK tax-payer. You already paid to watch it.

But would all browsers and services use the same HTML5 DRM scheme, or would they be incompatible with each other, and then you'd need someone to make a plugin with "all-in-one" HTML5 DRM schemes? Because if they aren't compatible then that defeats the point of doing this in HTML5.