HTML6 = HTML5 - DRM
Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
351–360 of 424 posts
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
It corrupts the Open Web, meaning that one cannot simply decide to write a web client that will be able to display any standards-compliant content. It corrupts the W3C, in that it weakens their position in maintaining the Open Web, and lessens their value in the eyes of everyone except for the MPAA and its ilk. It harms culture, in that valuable cultural artifacts will be locked up in a way that will render them inac…
I'm still waiting for the explanation of how it actually causes harm. Most of what you describe is not exactly harmful and is easily dealt with. What's to stop someone from creating their own web client that doesn't implement that part of the standard? Where's it written that we have to follow every bit of the standard as it is written? Who gave this select group of people that much power over the open web? Personall…
So, to paraphrase, you think there will be no harm because the W3C isn't doing anything useful as things stand?
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Considering that many GOG games run in DOSEmu anyway and some come with native Linux support this is not really understandable.
Shipping binary software for Linux is like playing a never-ending game of Space Invaders. GOG's position is totally understandable.
No, it's not. Their position is (at least from their last status update): "we are trying to come up with a long term support methodology, and didn't find one yet". It takes them more than a year to design it. It doesn't sound reasonable to me.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can also remove games from the store and from users' libraries: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-remove...
From the store, anyway. The update at the end of the article states that they were wrong, and the single player game is still in users' libraries.
[deleted]
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you should not be okay with DRM. It's as simple as it's: DRM is the form of slavery. Sorry Ivan, but voluntarily agreeing to access encrypted content is not comparable to slavery.
first of all, I agree that my message was too short and didn't have any arguments to positively contribute to the thread. Sorry about that. Now, let me explain how did I come to this comparison (even if it seems rogue). To make it more specific, let's consider Raspberry Pi, which is one of the most open ARM boards and, at the same time, practices DRM. For example, its hardware video decoding capabilities might be unl…
[deleted]
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you should not be okay with DRM. It's as simple as it's: DRM is the form of slavery. Sorry Ivan, but voluntarily agreeing to access encrypted content is not comparable to slavery.
first of all, I agree that my message was too short and didn't have any arguments to positively contribute to the thread. Sorry about that. Now, let me explain how did I come to this comparison (even if it seems rogue). To make it more specific, let's consider Raspberry Pi, which is one of the most open ARM boards and, at the same time, practices DRM. For example, its hardware video decoding capabilities might be unl…
[deleted]
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think Mickey Mouse and other Disney properties are part of our culture? Copyright on those works would have expired ages ago, if the laws were enforced as they were written at the time. Disney continues to prevent people from participating in that part of our culture.
How do they prevent you from participating? Do they stop you at the doors of Disney World? Can you not watch Disney movies whenever you go to the theater? Oh, that's right, you just want it for free. Although, I agree with you on the copyright laws, they shouldn't be extended like they have been. But that's an issue to complain to the people who write the laws, not the content providers who take advantage of them.
> But that's an issue to complain to the people who write the laws, not the content providers who take advantage of them.
that works when the law makers are ethical and neutral. When the "content providers" get in bed with law makers to create laws favourable to themselves, then what?
I want to participate in culture by creating a derivative work based on the disney micky mouse figure. But i m disallowed, because of the said laws, unless i paid disney some amount of money. Do you think disney deserves this money?
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The general public doesn't have an issue with DRM, they happily purchase the content as-is today. Do they? >> They may grumble when they have to purchase a movie for the second or third time. So not happily then. And not what they actually want. >> but they continue to do so Because the choice is that or piracy, and many choose piracy. 'Not participating in popular culture' is a choice, but it's never going to be…
>> Do they? Yes, yes they do. Take a look at the proceeds from those industries and tell me people are not handing over money for said content. >> So not happily then... Ah, I see the problem. When I said happily I meant this definition: "felicitously; aptly; appropriately". Meaning they pay because that's what they are supposed to do. My bad. What they want and what they do are two different things. You see, they do…
>> Stupid people don't make that kind of money and do the things they do.
Very few people are intelligent in all areas, these people are clearly shortsighted and stupid in many.
I'm not going to address the rest of your comment, needless to say I disagree with pretty much everything you have to say on the topic, and I think that you set up and knock down a variety of convenient straw men on your response there.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
2a. Distributors that don't accept that go out of business, because none of the publishers from 1. want anything to do with them.
For example GOG is a successful DRM free distributor - they only accept DRM free games from various publishers. There are others as well (for music, e-books and etc.). It's mostly video industry which lacks DRM-free distribution options (services like this are virtually non existent worldwide: https://www.headweb.com/en/ See their DRM-free terms of purchase: https://www.headweb.com/en/100237/purchase-terms ). Support…
Unless I'm mistaken (I may be) GOG is primarily in the business of selling old games, which is why the publishers are willing to forgo DRM on the titles.
Publishers of new games (especially expensively developed new games) are more likely to fear a loss of revenue, especially in the crucial early period after release, without DRM.
Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
> forced You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Depends... He could live somewhere that he can't get access to legal copies of TV shows he wants to watch (Some TV shows take months, if ever, to show up locally). Or live somewhere like Australia where everything costs prohibitively more than elsewhere. If I want a TV show - Say House of Cards - and it's not available, or it's available much later than elsewhere, or it's prohibitively more pricey... They want the sh…
You seem to have confused "wants" with "needs".