Comment by kevingadd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevingadd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium?

If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hooks or tailor-made plugin APIs. Big Media is no more deserving of special treatment or protection than any of the other industries that want to build apps on the web, and the idea of dedicating time and resources to babysitting a dying industry when there are REAL PROBLEMS that could be solved instead is ridiculous.

The problem is that they know as well as we do that DRM doesn't work, and DRM especially doesn't work without the aid of special kernel/software hooks like the Windows PMP and OS X's anti-debugging protections. This is why they're so desperate to get DRM baked into the HTML5 spec and baked into browsers. The reality is though, adding DRM to browsers produces no value for anyone other than the lazy big media companies that can't adapt to the modern world. It doesn't produce value for consumers, it doesn't produce value for developers outside of big media, and it doesn't produce value for the people who actually produce video and audio content. All it does is enrich IP lawyers and executives.

Furthermore, the idea that lacking DRM somehow makes the web 'suck' is preposterous. Do you know anything about the web? If the web sucks that's entirely separate from whether or not it can play encrypted video. If it sucks, it's because browsers are full of security problems, websites are poorly designed and poorly engineered, web accessibility for the disabled is poor, web performance is miserable in many markets, and ISPs like Comcast continually abuse their monopoly status to overcharge and under-deliver. Encrypted video is so far from a real-world concern or priority for ordinary people that suggesting it's somehow NECESSARY for the web to not suck makes you look absolutely raving insane.

I didn't say the Web sucks, I said consumers will perceive that the Web sucks if they can't find the experiences they want there. I've been on the Web since Tim Berners-Lee announced the first web page, I'm rpetty sure I know stuff about it.

Consumers will have to install an extra plugin to get the same experience as native apps. This is better than having DRM built into html5 which will make unreasonable demands from the browser and the OS. With DRM in html5, it might be possible that Linux based systems may not be able to support html5. If you can have completely open source code, go ahead and add DRM support to html5.

The problem is that they know as well as we do that DRM doesn't work

Unfortunately, as much as some of us would like that to be true, it seems very unlikely. DRM isn't some binary thing where either it prevents copying 100% or it doesn't; it's a deterrent. It works as long as it stops/delays anyone from copying the product illegally so they get it through a legitimate channel instead. It works and is cost-effective if it does that to enough people that it saves more money than it costs in implementation expenses and any loss of good will. On the evidence to date, that loss of good will doesn't seem to translate into much actual loss of custom once the bitching dies down, presumably because most of the people doing the bitching were never going to pay for the material anyway, so it's a relatively low bar for DRM to be economically viable.

The reality is though, adding DRM to browsers produces no value for anyone other than the lazy big media companies that can't adapt to the modern world.

Of course they can't. The law in most places is set up so the content producer's side of the bargain is clear, but that law is not enforced to make sure that everyone else keeps up their side of the bargain too.

Lots of people post on forums about how these companies need to "adapt their business models". Approximately 100% of those people also enjoy content made by the "lazy big media companies" in question under their current business model, which is becoming less effective. Wanting cheap/free access to that content by making sure that the legal/economic framework under which is was produced continues to be circumvented is a Faustian bargain. It's not sustainable. But no-one seems to be having much success with ideas for alternative business models so far.

Of course there will probably always be mass market films or pop music or sports games that will reliably make a profit even under these conditions. However, the same conditions are toxic to smaller, independent content producers who might have done something innovative or catered to a niche market. Next week the same consumers who object to DRM and dying business models will be complaining that modern AAA games are all derivative titles in long-running series, the SyFy channel doesn't show much good sci-fi any more, the latest Hollywood blockbusters are mostly SFX, action scenes, and attractive young stars whose acting abilities are debatable, and it's getting harder and harder to buy a general purpose computer and run your own software on it instead of buying a device that is already locked-up to some degree the moment you take it out of the box.

Lots of people post on forums about how these companies need to "adapt their business models". Approximately 100% of those people also enjoy content made by the "lazy big media companies" in question under their current business model, which is becoming less effective. Wanting cheap/free access to that content by making sure that the legal/economic framework under which is was produced continues to be circumvented is a Faustian bargain. It's not sustainable. But no-one seems to be having much success with ideas for alternative business models so far.

The fact that such people consume big media content now does not mean they wouldn't rather dispense with such content in exchange for the elimination of such laws.

In fact, an argument could be made that the production of such content smothers other, less capital intensive content made with lower expectations of large returns (for example, theater was much more successful around here before the big Hollywood blockbusters came to the scene).

However, the same conditions are toxic to smaller, independent content producers who might have done something innovative or catered to a niche market.

I don't doubt that the current conditions are toxic, but I don't think "those people" argue that the status quo is OK. Whether the conditions they argue for are toxic or not remains to be seen.

The fact that such people consume big media content now does not mean they wouldn't rather dispense with such content in exchange for the elimination of such laws.

That is true.

In fact, an argument could be made that the production of such content smothers other, less capital intensive content made with lower expectations of large returns

That is also true, I agree.

However, the overwhelming majority of commentary I see on all sides of the debate doesn't particularly support either of those premises. As far as I can tell, I am fairly unusual myself, simply because I actively avoid most DRM'd products even though I would probably enjoy the material and would consider the asking price fair if not for the downsides of DRM.

The only exceptions I make regularly are low-end copy protection on things like DVDs that I'm quite sure I could crack if anyone ever abused it, and high-end systems that come with expensive software I have little (legal) choice but to buy for work. The former have never caused me any problems. The latter have stung me on several occasions, and are one of the main reasons I think DRM should be regulated so if suppliers want to use it, they also have to accept the consequences if they get it wrong.

It seems most people I come across will simply buy DRM'd content anyway, even if they later whinge that it doesn't work properly. Just look at all the people buying AAA games even though the companies running them mess up time after time so the games often don't even work properly on launch day. EA has been voted "worst company in America" more than once, but just look at all the kids still preordering the latest titles for their game collection! People complain about DRM on their favourite forum, but then they still buy whatever it was they apparently couldn't live without anyway.

Frankly, I don't get your argument. You said that there was a problem because the critics of DRM and current business models were consuming the content while circumventing the economic framework, so the situation is unsustainable; now you said that the people who complain about DRM still buy the products anyway. That doesn't sound unsustainable to me.

I was talking specifically about paying customers, and how DRM probably doesn't reduce the revenue from that market very much even though it's clearly hostile towards those people.

Obviously the point of DRM is to try to reduce the number of people who are consuming the content without becoming paying customers, and given the assumption I'm making above, it doesn't need a very high success rate to be economically worthwhile.

If people still buy EA games like lemmings even after things like the SimCity fiasco, how many pirates do they really need to deter using DRM, and for how long, before it becomes an absolutely guaranteed revenue booster? Most games or major movies make an extremely disproportionate chunk of their revenue in the first few days after launch. If the suppliers can hold off piracy for even a week or two before a crack is out and get even a few percent of would-be pirates who are desperate to play the game or see the film to do it through a legitimate channel instead, that's potentially millions in extra profits on a AAA game or Hollywood blockbuster.

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

You're assuming that blockbuster movies are a business model that will continue to work in the future. That's highly questionable - in the game industry developers and publishers are being forced to accept the possibility that the blockbuster model is no longer going to be a reliable source of revenue or the right way to develop things. I won't claim to know enough to say whether this is true for film or television, but it is at least reasonable to ask 'maybe the reason these products require fragile, overcomplicated DRM solutions is because we're building the wrong products'.

I hate to use this analogy, but this really seems like a potential buggy-whip situation: It's quite possible that the content Big Media is producing is simply no longer relevant, even if the lack of relevance is due to changes in how people consume media and not because people are somehow no longer interested in explosions or big-name actors.

Possible, I'll buy that. Maybe YouTube will one day kill off the major networks and studios, and production will get cheap, just like startups have gotten a lot cheaper to run with EC2.

But I'm still going to go see Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness and I'm not holding my breath that a non-DRM version will be cooked up outside the blockbuster system anytime soon. :)

Is there any doubt that Star Trek Into Darkness could raise an unspeakably large amount of money on a crowdfunding platform?

It looked very much like fans of Firefly would have been able to raise enough to continue making the series but they were given not very subtle hints than getting involved in a crowdfunded production would have been bad for the showbiz careers of those involved.

This. While I don't like DRM, I feel like this boxing out of DRM-using media companies is pointless. Consumers continue to subscribe to media sources they find convenient and many use DRM. This may not last forever, but I'm inclined to vote bring all these people into the fold on the modern web so it's a place for everyone. Nobody's forcing anybody to use DRM.

I think the point is more nuanced than that. It's not that DRM doesn't belong on the web, but it doesn't belong as an integral part of the web and web components. There are already well-specified mechanisms like <object> and NPAPI/ActiveX plugins that you can use right now to ship encrypted video if you want.

The cost of every single feature added to the Standard Web is tremendous and we pay that cost forever. By that standard alone, adding a feature like DRM video to serve the demands of an enormous, incredibly powerful, incredibly rich lobby is ridiculous. There are simply much better problems to be solved with less downsides.

So, to try and rephrase it: The question here isn't whether these people should be 'brought into the fold' on the modern web; DRM is intrinsically at odds with the modern web (and the web we've had before), both in concrete purpose and in the more nebulous philosophical ways. A major strength of the web has always been its ability to open doors and put powerful tools in the hands of everyone, and encrypted/protected video limited to certain platforms/devices just fundamentally runs counter to all of that.

> What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

That's something they have to care about, not I. I have the right to say "fuck you" and not give a shit about their business model. They had ample time to at least make a feeble try to start adapting, but so far this has not happened. I see a "blockbuster" movie about twice a year and could not care less if the typical Hollywood drivel completely stops.

Not to mention the dross is gumming up the tubes!

Having said that, this is more a question of content delivery than the actual content.

"What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies"

It's the same as the DRM-encumbered business model: make movies and charge people to watch them. DRM doesn't make that model any more or less effective.

This. They already have legal options to protect their IP. If they still want to use DRM, continue using plugins.

Why include DRM in html5 and potentially alienate open source operating systems?

Why use html5 to help sell more windows/osx copies?

Why use html5 to promote vendor lock-in?

Are copyright laws not enough protection?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com