Netflix, Microsoft, and Google just quietly changed how the web works(theoutline.com)
theoutline.com
Netflix, Microsoft, and Google just quietly changed how the web works
https://theoutline.com/post/2304/netflix-microsoft-and-google-just-quietly-changed-how-the-web-works
14 comments
It's almost as if consumers need collective bargaining power, like a union.
Asymmetrical negotiations in all aspects of society produce asymmetrical outcomes.
Asymmetrical negotiations in all aspects of society produce asymmetrical outcomes.
You can vote with your wallet. But most won't, because when push comes to shove it's more important to have access to shows than to care how they get to you.
> A long overdue outcome of this new W3C disaster is the realization that the consumer or the general public doesn't sit at the table when it comes to shape the Web's destiny.
I wouldn't assume the "general public" cares at all about DRM/EME on the web. Given the choice between being able to watch Netflix and not, I think the vast majority of people would like the web to be a platform enabled for copyrighted content, including myself. I was happy when DRM came to Linux browsers, not because I am a fan of DRM, but I am a fan of being able to legally pay for and watch copyrighted content. Before that the options were piracy, or not watching content I was interested in. There is no 4th option at this point in time.
I think if the general public had a seat at these negotiations, there would be more support for EME, not less.
I find it odd that for a community that largely works in software or other technology, many HN commenters are so hostile to DRM. Where is the outrage to software-enforced licencing for copyrighted software (much of which is trivially bypassed, like current media DRM)? Its more or less the same, to me. If you want to take a hardline Richard Stallman-esque philosophy, thats perfectly fine, but dont claim that your beliefs represent anything resembling general public sentiment, or even the general sentiment here.
Controversial opinion, flame on.
I wouldn't assume the "general public" cares at all about DRM/EME on the web. Given the choice between being able to watch Netflix and not, I think the vast majority of people would like the web to be a platform enabled for copyrighted content, including myself. I was happy when DRM came to Linux browsers, not because I am a fan of DRM, but I am a fan of being able to legally pay for and watch copyrighted content. Before that the options were piracy, or not watching content I was interested in. There is no 4th option at this point in time.
I think if the general public had a seat at these negotiations, there would be more support for EME, not less.
I find it odd that for a community that largely works in software or other technology, many HN commenters are so hostile to DRM. Where is the outrage to software-enforced licencing for copyrighted software (much of which is trivially bypassed, like current media DRM)? Its more or less the same, to me. If you want to take a hardline Richard Stallman-esque philosophy, thats perfectly fine, but dont claim that your beliefs represent anything resembling general public sentiment, or even the general sentiment here.
Controversial opinion, flame on.
Let's not conflate issues and leave JavaScript and WASM out of this discussion. They are useful, general technologies.
What makes me most angry about all this is that the conflict is framed as being between "consumers" or "users" the anonymous masses expected to just passively download and experience "the content" and the "producers" the real contributors who fill their browsers with this oh so valuable "content".
But that is not what the web should be about at all! Yes in any social gatherings there will be a large corpus of passive participants but we should never just bifurcate the community into consumers and producers because of that. Between the active and passive participants there's a large space of interesting levels of participation, the commentators, remixers, transducers, the ones keeping quiet until they don't and and so forth.
The web should be about this large interactive space where people can exchange and collaborate in any chosen capacity. Not a distribution infrastructure of "content".
So please forget any arguments about what "consumers want to consume" it just promotes this unproductive bifurcation.
But that is not what the web should be about at all! Yes in any social gatherings there will be a large corpus of passive participants but we should never just bifurcate the community into consumers and producers because of that. Between the active and passive participants there's a large space of interesting levels of participation, the commentators, remixers, transducers, the ones keeping quiet until they don't and and so forth.
The web should be about this large interactive space where people can exchange and collaborate in any chosen capacity. Not a distribution infrastructure of "content".
So please forget any arguments about what "consumers want to consume" it just promotes this unproductive bifurcation.
Good write-up article. Also note:
"Before the EFF quit, the organization offered a compromise that would have forced rights holders to sign a covenant saying they would not use copyright law to sue people who interacted with their soon-to-be standardized DRM in the course of doing security research or accessibility work. "
"Before the EFF quit, the organization offered a compromise that would have forced rights holders to sign a covenant saying they would not use copyright law to sue people who interacted with their soon-to-be standardized DRM in the course of doing security research or accessibility work. "
W3C was always going to do this.
Nothing called a “consortium” will ever have the general populace’s best interests in mind.
And there’s no opposing force that could leverage a penalty of any merit.
So they can just do what they like and will earn themselves or their host companies the most money.
Nothing called a “consortium” will ever have the general populace’s best interests in mind.
And there’s no opposing force that could leverage a penalty of any merit.
So they can just do what they like and will earn themselves or their host companies the most money.
For a critical article, the headline page oddly parrots the DRM proponents agenda: "At issue was how to support copyright-protected video in web browsers". Copyright protection is of course independent of DRM, and it would be arguably better for web content (video included) if big media would't buy itself these kinds of browser features.
In my country DRM is a way for the copyright holder to communicate to the user that private copying is prohibited. All DRM systems can be trivially broken but it is illegal. If the content is not DRM protected you can legally make private copies.
Thus the major differences between DRM and DRM-free products are:
1) The DRM-free product you own for the rest of your life. You can legally do format conversions for future proofing your ownership.
2) The DRM product you can use for a time which is usually less than your lifetime. Sometimes the physical product format deteoriates (e.g. DVD) or the file cannot be used anymore (e.g. if Audible shuts down its login servers).
In the case of a streaming provider I do not understand why to go through so much hassle to prohibit private copying. You could just include a text that says "private copying prohibited". This would be an easier way to achieve the same thing.
I have a feeling that there are some people actively misleading copyright owners to use these DRM solutions and pay for their use. After all they only pay for delivering this message to the end user in an overly complicated manner.
Thus the major differences between DRM and DRM-free products are:
1) The DRM-free product you own for the rest of your life. You can legally do format conversions for future proofing your ownership.
2) The DRM product you can use for a time which is usually less than your lifetime. Sometimes the physical product format deteoriates (e.g. DVD) or the file cannot be used anymore (e.g. if Audible shuts down its login servers).
In the case of a streaming provider I do not understand why to go through so much hassle to prohibit private copying. You could just include a text that says "private copying prohibited". This would be an easier way to achieve the same thing.
I have a feeling that there are some people actively misleading copyright owners to use these DRM solutions and pay for their use. After all they only pay for delivering this message to the end user in an overly complicated manner.
Nothing changed at all. W3C came up with lots of stuff that vendors chose to ignore, and vice versa. Ever since the web was remotely popular, browser vendors did their own thing.
Browser DRM is no different from <font> in that respect. The only difference here is that the W3C didn't take years to bend over, but months.
This is like a kid crying "wolf!!" in the zoo.
Browser DRM is no different from <font> in that respect. The only difference here is that the W3C didn't take years to bend over, but months.
This is like a kid crying "wolf!!" in the zoo.
You can not compare the <font> tag or a technology that is convenient for Netflix's business model.
That's besides the point.
My point is OP acts as if W3C ever had any authority and the DRM affair took it away. In reality, they never had much authority.
Browser vendors will pretty much do as they please, as they always have.
My point is OP acts as if W3C ever had any authority and the DRM affair took it away. In reality, they never had much authority.
Browser vendors will pretty much do as they please, as they always have.
Absolutely. Vendors have long looked upon W3C as providing opinions. The history of web innovation has always been one or more parties moving quickly to build something new, and W3C playing catch up to try and herd all the cats into something developers can support across as many browsers as possible.
Discussed previously:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15278883
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15278883
Anyone know the implications of EME on things like new “super cookies” or other privacy invaiding techniques?
As it stands, EME has no direct impact on privacy, but since its very nature is a binary blob explicitly outside the control of the browser or the user, one can imagine DRM being used for purposes other than it was originally conceived for. And such kind of tracking would be impossible to simply "block", without disabling the whole page/site/app, a trade-off that most people will make in a predictable manner.
DRM is just a natural consequence of commercialisation of the web and the pushes and pulls that big money brings into the picture. We won't be going back on this. The best we can hope for is govt regulation and more awareness leading to better choices from the end user, who has the power to shape the web but sadly remains distracted, diverted and ignorant, by and large.
DRM is just a natural consequence of commercialisation of the web and the pushes and pulls that big money brings into the picture. We won't be going back on this. The best we can hope for is govt regulation and more awareness leading to better choices from the end user, who has the power to shape the web but sadly remains distracted, diverted and ignorant, by and large.
If the W3C doesn't support DRM wouldn't that quickly lead to more non-W3C DRM? I don't get the big deal. Netflix would ship their own browser if they had to (and that'd be a bad thing).
Netflix would ship their own browser ...
They already do, it browses only Netflix, and they call it an app - at least on all non-general purpose computational devices e.g. smartphones, smart tvs etc.
They already do, it browses only Netflix, and they call it an app - at least on all non-general purpose computational devices e.g. smartphones, smart tvs etc.
If the closed part of EME and the remote possibility of being thrown in jail for researching such extensions was removed, would there have been such an outcry?
So this is the much ballyhooed new Microsoft? Doesn't look like the Tiger's stripes have changed so much after all.
Not sure which side do you agree with but it sure seems like you just conveniently ignored that besides Mozilla, all other major browser makers Microsoft, Google and Apple are for this as well and actually already have it implemented and ready.
The web was a pile of nearly nothing before corporations embraced it. You can always go back to that. Nobody's stopping you.
Self-proclaimed "standard bodies" W3C and WHATWG have failed to address the Web's rampant problems: privacy enforcement standards (or lack thereof), and oligopolistic or even monopolistic concentration of large parts of the web infrastructure in the hands of Google, Facebook, Cloudflare, and very few others, with a lack of incentive to do something about it because of W3C's and WHATWG's financial dependency on the very parties having no interest in changing the status quo.
What W3C and WHATWG do have delivered instead: DRM, and privacy-invading de-facto requirement of JavaScript for even the simplest of interactivity features, and WASM (even more privacy-invading, procedural features, from the guys that brought you JavaScript).