Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

lists.w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#401

Post by sp332 »

talmand wrote: post #345
sp332 wrote: post #317

Earlier 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.

I'm not talking about piracy or passive consumption as "participation". I mean people who are making art, movies, music etc. can't create anything new with Mickey Mouse or Snow White or Bambi because they are owned by Disney. You can't even sell a ringtone of Alice saying "You’re mad, bonkers, off your head! But I’ll tell you a secret: all the best people are", even if you make your own version in your own voice. Because Disney decided they're not done wringing money out of a movie made before my father was born. I don't just mean wholesale copying, but using any of it as raw materials for something creative is prohibited.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#402

Post by sp332 »

talmand wrote: post #395
chii wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

According to the law, yes. They absolutely deserve that money because that's what the law says. You can't choose to ignore a law because it's inconvenient for you. If you choose to ignore a law for your own benefit then that allows others to do the same for your potential detriment. That's extremely bad short-term thinking. Your complaint is with the law, it has nothing to do with the content providers. You say but t…

According to the law, yes.

That's begging the question. We could change the law, but first we have to ask if we should, and in what way. That's why chii asked: Do you think disney deserves this money? Only after we answer that, will we know what the law should be.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#403

Post by shmerl »

derefr wrote: post #379
pquerna wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipping binaries on Linux is nearly impossible on a long term support basis. FatELF would of addressed at least some of these problems, but was largely rejected by the larger community of people not shipping proprietary products on Linux: https://icculus.org/fatelf/

Might Docker containers be a valid solution to this? Shipping old games is a sorta-kinda-similar problem to shipping frozen versions of web-apps.

That can work probably, since Docker claims that it doesn't impose big overhead, so it can be suitable for gaming.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#404

Post by nbouscal »

talmand wrote: post #396
nbouscal wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be acting intentionally dense. Surely you understand that the difference being discussed here pertains specifically to duplicable content, where the property involved is "intellectual property" and much more open to alternative interpretations than things like land or food.

No, I'm not dense, I see property as property. You act as if I don't know what's going on technology wise. But I do know and understand, it's not a difficult situation to comprehend. Implying I'm dense or any other derogatory term is just an attempt to dismiss me without having to actually consider what I'm saying. You shouldn't do that because that's typically the defense of someone who has little to back up their s…

I didn't say that you were dense, I said that you were acting dense. I also didn't espouse any of the positions that you credited me with, rather I simply pointed out that this is a complex issue. You have acted throughout this thread as though this were black and white, and as though "stealing" music were the same as stealing bread or any other physical object. The specific post that I replied to was the most telling instance of this. I'm not arguing for a position on either side of this issue right now, I'm simply telling you that if you want to have a discussion about it, you have to at least come to the table with the recognition that there is a rational basis for the opposing point of view. You can disagree, sure, but the way that you are doing so is far from productive.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#405

Post by extrafox »

yarou wrote: post #309
talmand wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general public doesn't have an issue with DRM, they happily purchase the content as-is today. They may grumble when they have to purchase a movie for the second or third time but they continue to do so. Therefore the public, being people with money, have stated overwhelmingly that they want content without stipulating anything about DRM, free or otherwise. You are attempting to apply your viewpoint on the general…

Hollywood is delusional, though. They are missing out on a huge potential revenue stream by having DRM-free distribution platforms. Why was Megaupload so popular if people really liked DRM?

So, you are saying that people went to Megaupload, not because it was free, but because it was DRM free?

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#406

Post by talmand »

Nursie wrote: post #397
talmand wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? If they don't provide the content you wish to see in a way that's convenient for you but is convenient for the mass of their market I fail to see the problem. If you want to see the content bad enough then you accept the requirements. Otherwise, it says more for you to not participate by not giving money. As more people do this, things will change.

So we shouldn't encourage its addition to open standards.

If it's in the standards to explain how to implement it and make use of it but it's implemented as a third-party item that's up to the individual to decide whether to install or not, what difference does it make? We're eventually going to get that anyway so why not know how it works upfront?

Plus, from what I've read Chrome should start losing market share immediately because it already has a form of EME implemented. All these people in an uproar over the W3C's decision should be switching to something else to show their concern.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#407

Post by talmand »

sp332 wrote: post #402
talmand wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the law, yes. They absolutely deserve that money because that's what the law says. You can't choose to ignore a law because it's inconvenient for you. If you choose to ignore a law for your own benefit then that allows others to do the same for your potential detriment. That's extremely bad short-term thinking. Your complaint is with the law, it has nothing to do with the content providers. You say but t…

According to the law, yes. That's begging the question. We could change the law, but first we have to ask if we should, and in what way. That's why chii asked: Do you think disney deserves this money? Only after we answer that, will we know what the law should be.

Change the law? Absolutely. That is actually what I've been trying to advocate all through several discussions, that the outrage is misplaced. Don't like the law? Demand a change in the laws instead and stop wasting time on the companies that follow the law.

It's like that silly issue where everyone gets mad every year at international companies following various country's tax laws to reduce their tax obligations as much as possible but never actually demand a change in the laws themselves. They rail against the company as if that will change anything.

But to answer the question again, yes indeed, Disney deserves that money because that's what the law states. I don't understand how I can make that more clear. The fact that they get any money at all from their original creation is directly tied into such laws. Without those laws they have to hope for the best on the goodwill of people to compensate them for their work. As for deserve? They created it didn't they? Do they deserve anything at all? If they do, for how long until it could be considered public domain? Should anything be considered public domain after a time at all? That's what the law is for, to answer those questions. If you want to change the law, the current law applies until you change it. You can't start at zero and build up, you have to start with what's already established. Therefore, Disney deserves that money because of the law as it stands today.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#408

Post by talmand »

nbouscal wrote: post #404
talmand wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not dense, I see property as property. You act as if I don't know what's going on technology wise. But I do know and understand, it's not a difficult situation to comprehend. Implying I'm dense or any other derogatory term is just an attempt to dismiss me without having to actually consider what I'm saying. You shouldn't do that because that's typically the defense of someone who has little to back up their s…

I didn't say that you were dense, I said that you were acting dense. I also didn't espouse any of the positions that you credited me with, rather I simply pointed out that this is a complex issue. You have acted throughout this thread as though this were black and white, and as though "stealing" music were the same as stealing bread or any other physical object. The specific post that I replied to was the most tellin…

Ah, ok, I see what you mean by not claiming I'm dense but just what I'm saying. My bad.

Also, again my bad, I'm attributing the whole discussion onto you instead of specifically your statement. I tend to lump everything together when multiple people respond throughout a single thread as though they are in agreement with the thread as a whole. I'll have to work on that.

I fully recognize the opposing position in this debate, I understand the thought behind it, I use to agree with it. But at this point, exactly as you point out, I highly disagree with it today. For the most part, I see people wanting to alter the definition of ownership for their own benefit to the detriment of the original creator. That the simple idea that a song can be perfectly copied countless times without damaging the original copy is somehow license to demand that the original creator hand over all their ownership rights without compensation is just wrong. It is as simple as the "black and white" example of stealing bread or any other physical object. I would give more credit to discussions about stealing bread because it's possible a human being stole it to survive, no one needs the latest hit song or movie to survive. If time and resources were spent in the creation of the product then I fail to understand why it's wrong for the creator to expect compensation, if they desire it.

Rational basis? What exactly is that in this case? Because I've never seen it. If anyone can give me a rational example of why the "I want it, it's easy to copy, therefore it should be mine" way of thinking is justified, then I'll reconsider my position.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#409

Post by [deleted] »

talmand wrote: post #407
sp332 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the law, yes. That's begging the question. We could change the law, but first we have to ask if we should, and in what way. That's why chii asked: Do you think disney deserves this money? Only after we answer that, will we know what the law should be.

Change the law? Absolutely. That is actually what I've been trying to advocate all through several discussions, that the outrage is misplaced. Don't like the law? Demand a change in the laws instead and stop wasting time on the companies that follow the law. It's like that silly issue where everyone gets mad every year at international companies following various country's tax laws to reduce their tax obligations as…

[deleted]

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#410

Post by talmand »

sp332 wrote: post #401
talmand wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about piracy or passive consumption as "participation". I mean people who are making art, movies, music etc. can't create anything new with Mickey Mouse or Snow White or Bambi because they are owned by Disney. You can't even sell a ringtone of Alice saying "You’re mad, bonkers, off your head! But I’ll tell you a secret: all the best people are", even if you make your own version in your own voice. Bec…

Why does that matter so much? Why is it so important for someone to be able to sell a ringtone from a movie they didn't create? Why is it so important for someone to make money off a derivative work based off of the work of someone else? Besides, there are examples of people making money off of derivatives of popular content they didn't create. It's just a fine line between making a copy and creating a derivative.

I think the thing I've been missing is so far is because Disney is the example, which is a big company, and big companies are evil right?

Let me toss a wrinkle into that logic.

Newly graduated college student makes an animated short. Took months, maybe years, to get it done. Took weeks, maybe months, of hard work to get it visible to the public. Public loves the film and wishes to buy a copy. Someone makes a "derivative" work that copies the characterizations of the original animation. For some reason, derivative work becomes popular. Original creator loses out. Screw the original creator right?

You do realize that the most likely outcome of allowing derivative works to happen too soon is that the big companies with their huge resources will swoop in and wipe out the small guys in no time flat? You think I'm defending big companies with these statements? I'm defending all creators regardless if they are Disney or the dirt-poor artist down the street.

If you have a problem with Disney being able to continue making money from their original characters, despite some of their characters being based off previous stories in the public domain, because copyright laws keep getting changed then you're problem is with the system that allows such things. Attack the system, not creators because you'll almost always come across as unfair to them in some way.

Post reply on HN