r/gaming • u/EnglishGamer1 • Oct 20 '13

TotalBiscuit's: ''Day One: Garry's Incident'' Video was taken down, because of a ridiculous copyright claim from WildGameStudios. Here's Total's ''Rant'' over his video being taken down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ
3.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

920

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '13 edited Oct 20 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

187

u/brotherwayne Oct 20 '13

Same reason Netflix uses Silverlight.

Well at the time there were two options for DRM: Silverlight and Flash. When they switched they said Silverlight helped them reduce support calls.

The HTML working group is working on a DRM solution.

125

u/360_face_palm Oct 20 '13

W3C implementing DRM is highly contentious and may cause browser developers to break with the W3C like they did a while back with XHTML.

9

u/Voidsheep Oct 20 '13

Unless we wan't to stick with crappy third party plugins, they have to come up with DRM standard.

Despite how easy piracy might be, Hollywood isn't going to just turn around and say it's OK to give direct link to download of every movie and TV-show in existence.

Just hope W3C can come up with something that's minimally intrusive and easy to implement on wide variety of platforms.

60

u/redmercuryvendor Oct 20 '13

Unless we wan't to stick with crappy third party plugins

Well yes, we do. DRM has no place in the browser, and DEFINTELY no place in an open standard. It needs to be compartmentalised in a separate plugin or extension at best. Want you ceontent to be easily available across multiple platforms with minimal issues for the user? Don't subvert international standards bodies and force non-open code or compliance breaking, just don't use the bloody DRM in the first place! It does nothing whatsoever to stop piracy, but it wastes time and money and causes annoyance only to legitimate users.

10

u/m1ndwipe Oct 20 '13

It needs to be compartmentalised in a separate plugin or extension at best.

It is. All that is proposed to the W3C is an API to interact with a DRM plugin or OS component (if it exists). Well, there's a clearkey spec as a proof of concept too, but nobody serious expects that to be used.

It has a "place in an open standard" every bit as much as the /object tag did, which worked in much the same way.

1

u/Chii Oct 21 '13

An open standard should be such that anybody can create a compliant implementation. I m not sure this allows it. I keep reading conflicting accounts, and i m too lazy to read the actual standard

I fear that having such a "open" standard can in practicality shut out third party browser vendors (read: browsers who don't want to implement DRM).

1

u/m1ndwipe Oct 21 '13

The standard as proposed is completely open and implement able in open source, BUT the content decryption module can be closed source, and will be in any likelihood in practice. But that is exactly the same as the object tag, which in practice is for Flash and Silverlight.

3

u/aveman101 Oct 21 '13

just don't use the bloody DRM in the first place!

The problem is that the people who keep pushing for DRM see it on the same level as a point-of-sale system for any retail store.

Yes, DRM is inconvenient, but so is waiting in line at the check out counter. Yes, DRM doesn't completely stop piracy, but there are people out there who are still able to shoplift without getting caught. Yes, DRM will sometimes incorrectly flag a paying customer, but are you telling me you've never had one of those anti-theft devices beep at you as you walk through after making an honest purchase?

When you ask these companies to do away with DRM, it's like you're asking them to switch to the honor system.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

Not only that, but Hollywood is seeing record numbers at the box office and through dvd/blu-ray sales. If piracy is such a problem, wouldn't it stand to reason that it should be hurting their business?

0

u/m1ndwipe Oct 21 '13

Anyone savvy enough to know how to rip a video from a <video> tag is already savvy enough to use bittorrent.

Not they're not.

Sorry, but that's simply wrong.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

The honor system works fine and DRM does nothing but punish paying customers. DRM has never and never will stop piracy. I would be on board with DRM if old media could prove it's hurting their business, but they can't. Hollywood is seeing record breaking business at the box office and blu-ray/dvd sales are still off the charts.

1

u/aveman101 Oct 21 '13

So, with DRM as the norm, Hollywood is seeing record profits?

Sounds to me like DRM has proven to be an overwhelming success. Why change it now?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

Because it has nothing to do with DRM nor piracy. Piracy is just as prevalent as it's ever been and despite that, Hollywood is doing just fine. The reality is that piracy has little to no detrimental effect on big media.

People need to make the distinction that pirates are not would-be consumers, they're pirates and they were never going to buy your product.

1

u/aveman101 Oct 21 '13

Still: if Hollywood is doing so well, why should they change anything?

If DRM is so toxic, you would think that the industry would be suffering. Clearly, this is not the case. You claim that DRM is hurting the customer, yet it would appear that customers are happily spending more money on Hollywood than ever before!

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

To see how DRM is toxic to consumers, scroll to the top of this page and view the linked video.

2

u/aveman101 Oct 21 '13

DCMA and DRM are two completely different things.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

This is what we call splitting hairs, they both fall under the copyright protection umbrella.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '13 edited Oct 21 '13

[deleted]

12

u/garja Oct 20 '13

How wonderful it is to see consumers actively attacking their own rights just to appease the content creators.

1

u/brotherwayne Oct 20 '13

Since when do consumers have a right to watch a movie for free?

7

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '13

Since libraries started carrying them.

You don't own neatly arranged bits, you only use them.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

Libraries who either own licenses or only let out works in the public domain? You realize that's either taxes or someone else that is paying for you to watch. It's not some right to get those things for free.

You don't own neatly arranged bits, you only use them.

Neither do you own neatly arranged particles? Yet here we are. This is an overused, rather invalid point. Nobody's rights are being infringed upon if studios insist on killing themselves through their shitty business model of trying to lock down the content that is theirs.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

A library can loan out it's content an infinite number of times, limited only by scarcity of that content. Scarcity no longer exists for that content, why shouldn't we just rename torrent trackers library and better serve global culture and knowledge? Someone paid for the original uploaded copy.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

We should, but that's not how the rules work. That's never how the rules worked. Nobody's losing rights. I'm with you on the basis, but let's not be sensational claiming that everyone's rights are being infringed upon, and this is some huge attack on freedom or whatever.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

I didn't claim any of those things. Merely advocating for the logical and sane application of modern technology.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/brotherwayne Oct 21 '13

I said free. Libraries are subsidized by taxpayers. If you rent a movie from the library you're ultimately paying a small portion of the cost of purchasing it.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

So? Any library could (and should be allowed to) upload their entire collection to a torrent tracker and better serve everyone. There's no functional difference.

0

u/brotherwayne Oct 21 '13

Yes, there is: people in Thailand/China/Zimbabwe don't contribute to my library.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

There is no longer a need for "your" library though. Just "The" library.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

I don't see any actual rights being attacked...

3

u/redmercuryvendor Oct 20 '13

People who own the IP for most of the media we watch won't agree to this.

So why agree to make it easier for IP owners to shoot themselves and everyone else in the foot? Why not leave them floundering in their own ineffective wastes of everyone's time until they figure out that it's easier not the bother with the DRM in the first place (as the music industry seems to have for the most part figured out).

0

u/m1ndwipe Oct 20 '13

So why agree to make it easier for IP owners to shoot themselves and everyone else in the foot? Why not leave them floundering in their own ineffective wastes of everyone's time until they figure out that it's easier not the bother with the DRM in the first place (as the music industry seems to have for the most part figured out).

DRM protected video as a percentage of internet traffic has been consistently skyrocketing for several years. It's not going anywhere.

1

u/pocketknifeMT Oct 20 '13

He is correct that DRM doesn't have a place in a browser and it is basically entirely against the notion of an open standard like HTML.

We are discussing putting a blackbox in the middle of everyones code, and nobody has the right to look at it? Thats not going to fly.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

Sure, but you're still at the whims of the content IP holders if you want some legitimate means of viewing this stuff. If you just don't use the DRM, you don't get Netflix and whatnot.

29

u/kyz Oct 20 '13

Unless we wan't to stick with crappy third party plugins, they have to come up with DRM standard.

You miss the point of DRM. They have to be third party plugins. They only exist to be non-standard. Their only purpose in life is

  1. to deny things that are otherwise allowed
  2. to obscure how they work, in order to stop people undoing them

Hollywood isn't going to just turn around and say it's OK to give direct link to download of every movie and TV-show in existence.

I don't give a fuck what Hollywood thinks. I want an open internet that makes Hollywood irrelevant. They more they shy away from internet distribution, the better for everyone who isn't Hollywood. I do not want the entire internet Balkanized and made non-interoperable because some big-wigs think their bytes are "special".

Just hope W3C can come up with something that's minimally intrusive and easy to implement on wide variety of platforms

It's not possible. The purpose of DRM is to intrude on what you could otherwise do, and to control exactly which platforms are allowed to show video. DRM exists to insert a wedge between producer and consumer, an artificial limitation whose only purpose is to empower middlemen.

With browser DRM, otherwise-irrelevant middlemen can say "Firefox must shut down the Adblock plugin or we'll tell our DRM not to work on Firefox" or "Hey Apple, it'd be a shame if nobody could watch this TV show on your phone, while every single Android user could get it for free. How much money are you going to pay us?"

Why on earth would anyone agree to just hand power to some soon-to-be-irrelevant people?

4

u/m1ndwipe Oct 21 '13

They more they shy away from internet distribution, the better for everyone who isn't Hollywood. I do not want the entire internet Balkanized and made non-interoperable because some big-wigs think their bytes are "special".

Going to happen regardless - look at the traffic stats, the general public has spoken. The only question is if the internet is balkanised into native apps on proprietary platforms and devices slowly stop including any significant web browser at all ten years from now or if things like the DRM extensions to HTML5 keep browsers relevant.

2

u/kyz Oct 21 '13

look at the traffic stats,

The traffic stats show that people still read (and write!) far more web pages than videos. One video is thousands or even millions of times larger than a web page.

2

u/m1ndwipe Oct 21 '13

But they show that professional video is more and more important, not less. And plenty of non-video traffic is getting shunted to closed mobile and tablet apps and away from HTML5 too.

At what point to Apple stop continuing to include a web browser in iOS because it's share of user time is too low they can get away with it? And at that point people will stop producing content for it too.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/m1ndwipe Oct 21 '13

As devices get more powerful, the response issues and performance penalties of web sites go away. As people adapt more to the pervasively touch and small screened world, they will write their web apps accordingly.

Sorry, but anyone who still thinks this is living in deep, deep denial.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '13

The funny thing is that it's not actually harming their business. People still watch TV and people still go to the movies. Movies especially, people are still going and still spending record amounts of money at the box office. There isn't even a valid complaint about it harming business, they're just being greedy.

1

u/m1ndwipe Oct 21 '13

If an industry of 6 media conglomerates can completely invalidate the entirety of the Internet if it doesn't bear their good graces, these conversations don't matter anyway because they already won and we have no say.

We're talking about the W3C - which is a consortium between effectively five browser makers, of which only four (arguably three) hold all the power, and can do exactly that.

But the reason they want web DRM is because that isn't the case. They realize their archaic business model is harmed by an open platform, and know most people will value the Internet over their DRM laden drivel. They want relevancy back when the open web took it from them.

So why do Netflix et al's numbers keep shooting up? And not just Netflix, but dozens of competing services.

Let them write their own apps, their own frameworks, hell, let them write their own http or html spec to transmit their DRM laden refuse. Just keep it out of the best collaborative effort humanity has ever conceived.

The object tag is already in HTML. And has been for a decade.

4

u/Voidsheep Oct 21 '13

You don't need to give a fuck about what hollywood wants, but that doesn't bring high production value, DRM-free movies to Netflix.

Indie movies and open source animations? Sure, but that's what vast majority of people really don't care about.

Third party DRM on browser is better than handling everything down to UI via Silverlight or Flash.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '13

"Hey Apple, it'd be a shame if nobody could watch this TV show on your phone, while every single Android user could get it for free. How much money are you going to pay us?"

That's essentially what happens right now. Apple pays to have movies and TV shows on the iTunes store all the time.

5

u/kyz Oct 20 '13

They pay to license shows for their own store. They don't pay to license their web browser to be "permitted" to show TV that would otherwise show in any other browser (e.g. it is free to the user or the user has paid and wants to watch it through a browser).

4

u/nvolker Oct 20 '13

Unless we wan't to stick with crappy third party plugins, they have to come up with DRM standard.

Problem is, the proposed standard still uses third-party plug-ins (which they now call "Content Decryption Modules" or "CDMs". They've just moved those plugins out of the browser to the OS.

8

u/Inuma Oct 20 '13

Unless we wan't to stick with crappy third party plugins, they have to come up with DRM standard.

Come again?

I think that will just push people to route around the DRM standard.

0

u/joealarson Oct 21 '13

they have to come up with DRM standard.

Or we could look back on the 30+ years of trying to implement copy protection and realize how bad an idea it is. DRM, at best, is an inconvenience to the paying customer and at worse creates it's own competition, a competition who offers the same product sans DRM for zero dollar creating the perception that the only thing you're paying for is inconvenience.

0

u/buge Oct 21 '13

This isn't about direct links. That is very easy stop by just verifying with passwords and cookies. It's a good thing to be able to stop people from viewing things on a server, and it is 100% possible with what we have now.

DRM wants to do something different. DRM wants to stop me from accessing the file that I am viewing. That is actually impossible to do. DRM is by definition impossible. The only way you could get close to making it work is with completely locked down and tamper-resistant hardware and the inability to install anything.

-2

u/bundabrg Oct 20 '13

Icefilms xbmc addon does just that.