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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:11PM

    by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:11PM (#1551) Homepage Journal

    with proprietary drm you're screwed even more

    i see your point about it being more difficult to implement drm without a standard, but unfortunately it's happening anyway, so despite the difficulty the benefits must still outweigh the costs, and proprietary drm providers will lock consumers into their own little drm ecosystems where basically it's their way or the highway

    not saying drm would be any better under a w3c standard (it would still suck) but if i'm going to eventually have drm shoved down my throat (and i expect it will eventually happen regardless) i would rather it be through my favourite browser than being forced not only to endure drm, but to endure it through proprietary ecosystems like silverlight or flash

    there's no doubt that drm is a stinky turd, but we need to think about how to make the inevitable impending stink just a little more tolerable

    i also think that user disdain and market competition will keep the use of drm under some level of control; as long as there are options for the consumer, content providers will necessarily have to be wary about the potential backlash and exodus from their services

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Overrated=1, Total=1

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:08PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:08PM (#1708) Homepage Journal

    With DRM NOT a standard I don't have to deal with it at all; I simply refuse to have anything to do with anything having to do with DRM. If it were a web standard I would have to deal with it.

    I DON'T NEED "content." Hell, I create content. But I refuse to buy content, I buy physical, non-DRM media that contains content. If I pay my money I want what I pay for to be MINE.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:00PM

      by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:00PM (#1905) Homepage Journal

      I DON'T NEED "content." Hell, I create content

      so you eventually going to write all your own books, music, movies, websites, etc. whilst the rest of the world moves on (one way or another)? good luck with that

      If I pay my money I want what I pay for to be MINE

      i don't think you've grasped the concept of copyright... if something is copyrighted by someone else, you don't legally own it regardless of how much you paid or how it is physically/digitally/otherwise protected

      • (Score: 1) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:34AM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:34AM (#2072) Homepage Journal

        I already write books, music, and, websites*. And I used to write computer programs, too (Two were registered with the copyright office and the most common remark was "how the hell did you get that little computer to do THAT?). Before CSS was cracked I got movies from TPB simply because the pirate version is superior to watching from DVD - hit "play" and the movie starts without any unskippable shit like trailers and piracy warnings. Now that we have CSS I buy DVDs. When Blu-Ray is cracked I'll get a Blu-Ray player.

        And free, unencumbered content is not going away. Baen Books has tons of science fiction, all free for the reading at their website. Doctorow puts his books on BoingBoing for free. Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning is better done than a lot of movies I've paid for and is funny as hell.

        Just as there is open source software, there are "open source" books.

        You want music? Go to archive.org, there's some great indie stuff there. DRM is for giant corporations, not people. Fight the monster, buy books from Baen. Get RIAA music and hollywood films and printed books at your local library if your city doesn't suck.

        DRM will only take over if we accept it. I refuse to.

        i don't think you've grasped the concept of copyright... if something is copyrighted by someone else, you don't legally own it regardless of how much you paid or how it is physically/digitally/otherwise protected

        Indeed, when you buy Foundation you're not buying a novel, you're buying a BOOK. You own the physical object and the publisher can't take it back or restrict you in any way. You can sell it, give it away, use the pages for toilet paper, whatever you want. Same with a DVD or any other physical media - you can do anything you want legally, except publish copies. Unencumbered media can be backed up legally, DRMed content cannot.

        That is as it always was. Paid for downloaded media? You own nothing. They can take it away or restrict it any way they want, with no legal restrictions against them doing it. I own one copy of Foundation, and am free to do anyhing except republish, which is as it should be. It is physical property, I OWN it. They cannot take back real books or CDs, they can with DRMed downloads. Fools "buy" DRMed content.

        And don't forget, the concept of DRM was defeated before and will again. Back in the late '80s and early '90s DRM boycotts put publishers out of business and it died for a decade before the RIAA resurrected it, and DRM on MP3s died. The same will happen with books and movies.

        DRM IS EVIL. Don't accept evil.

        * See the journal I posted here today, it's a fifteen year old rerun of some of my old content, with a little new thrown in. It was a popular site in its day.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org