Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-can't-beat-'em dept.

An anonymous coward writes:

"In March, 2013 Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, proposed adopting DRM into the HTML standard, under the name Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Writing in October 2013, he said that "none of us as users like certain forms of content protection such as DRM at all," but cites the argument that "if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C" as a reason for considering the inclusion of DRM in HTML.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has objected, saying in May of last year that the plan 'defines a new "black box" for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user'. Later, they pointed out that if DRM is OK for video content, that same principle would open the door to font, web applications, and other data being locked away from users.

public-restrictedmedia, the mailing list where the issue is being debated, has seen discussion about forking HTML and establishing a new standard outside of the W3C."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SpallsHurgenson on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:05AM

    by SpallsHurgenson (656) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:05AM (#1387)

    DRM needs a third feature: an escape clause.

    Because we are increasingly running against DRM-protected media that has become inaccessible because the authorization server is not accessible. There needs to be a method for users to access their content after the provider choose to no longer support it. Perhaps an "all-access" key or software to remove the DRM is held in escrow so long as there is continued support for the media/DRM; when the authorization servers go down, the key or software is released to the public. This should be a legal obligation put onto publishers so they can't force users to repurchase content they have already purchased.

    That there is no such obligation on publishers /and/ users can be prosecuted for "cracking" their own property should they need to access the data after the publisher stop support, is just another example of how unfair and balanced against the consumer the market really is.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by jcd on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:31AM

    by jcd (883) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:31AM (#1466)

    This is a great idea. I hesitate a long time before buying anything that has DRM attached to it. I know, I've sold out even considering it, but let's be honest - sometimes, I need to read/watch/listen to something that doesn't come another way. And yeah, they've won. But as others have said above, DRM is not going anywhere. We need to find intelligent, transparent ways to manage it now. It's like trying to uninvent castle walls. They amount to an inconvenience for people with the tools and know-how (e.g., rival kings with catapults and trebuchets), and they tend to trap those that supposedly benefit from the defense in with disease and famine, but they aren't going to stop building walls because the peasants keep dying.

    --
    "What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"
    • (Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:31PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:31PM (#1933) Homepage Journal

      sometimes, I need to read/watch/listen to something that doesn't come another way.

      You NEED to? What, pray tell, do you NEED to read/watch/listen to? The only useful info behind paywalls is scientific journals, and they're hardcopy, not DRMed.

      You don't NEED to watch Gravity, you know. It is not a necessity! And god damn it, I don't use it, ever, at all (unless it's been cracked like DVDs; cracked DRM is no DRM at all). Hell, back in the early 0s I bought a CD and found it had DRM (wouldn't play in the computer) and returned it. Yeah, I could have cracked it or simply sampled it (music DRM is especially brain-dead) but I just returned it for a refund and told them the reason. "This CD is defective; it was designed not to work in my computer. It is not a Redbook CD." I got my money back.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 1) by jcd on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:48AM

        by jcd (883) on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:48AM (#2151)

        You NEED to? What, pray tell, do you NEED to read/watch/listen to?

        I'm not talking about petty entertainment. That I can take or leave on my own terms. But I'm a teacher. Sometimes I have to use certain media to make a point. I can't talk about the Vietnam protest movement and the relevant music legally without acquiring it through certain channels. Some movies and videos - in particular things like the History Channel, back when it used to actually have History - come from DRM only sources. They're good at that with some things.

        As far as reading is concerned, relevant research for my MA and for classroom activities sometimes only comes from DRM sources.

        And choosing to watch these things on youtube or finding ways to circumnavigate/crack the DRM doesn't help solve the problems that DRM poses. It's the principle of the thing that's the problem. All that does is up the chance that I'll end up in some sort of legal trouble.

        --
        "What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"
        • (Score: 1) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:44PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:44PM (#2585) Homepage Journal

          I can't talk about the Vietnam protest movement and the relevant music legally without acquiring it through certain channels.

          Nonsense, iTunes MP3s have no DRM so you can buy copies unencumbered. The question isn't "is it free?" it's "is it encumbered by DRM?" As to photos and videos, two seconds found this. [google.com] plenty of unencumbered photos and most likely videos as well.

          As far as reading is concerned, relevant research for my MA and for classroom activities sometimes only comes from DRM sources.

          They stopped printing textbooks and research papers on paper? Paper has no DRM.

          It's the principle of the thing that's the problem.

          Agreed completely. You certainly woudn't want to use illegal materials in class.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 1) by jcd on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:47PM

            by jcd (883) on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:47PM (#2590)

            That's fair. I'm not looking for free. But I just don't trust Apple's "no really, there's no DRM and you won't be punished" promises. I suppose that's a separate issue. And as far as papers go, unless you want access to only the most basic (and mostly out of date) stuff, forget about print. Especially if you live nowhere near a college campus like I do.

            --
            "What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"