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

411–420 of 424 posts

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#411

Post by sp332 »

talmand wrote: post #410
sp332 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Disney is the example, which is a big company, and big companies are evil right?

No, just a few :) My problem with Disney is that in protecting their own interests, they also extended copyright on tons of other people's works as well. http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976 I believe the original creator, big or small, is not as important as the rest of the people in society. If big corporations make most of the money from derivative works, that doesn't prevent other people from making their own as well. But copyright means there is a state-granted monopoly on nearly all creative works.

If you have a problem with Disney... then your problem is with the system that allows such things.

How would you "fix the system" so that only certain people get a say? Disney can lobby if they want, I just want them to lobby for different things.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#412

Post by nbouscal »

talmand wrote: post #408
nbouscal wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I inadvertently focused this discussion too much on the duplicability aspect of the argument, when there are other factors at play as well. For example, if someone purchases a song and then plays it on speakers, and you are nearby and listen to it, I've never heard someone claim that you've stolen the music. Similarly, if you go to a music video on youtube, then listen to it while switching to another tab, you also have not stolen the music. Yet if you download the exact same song from a torrent site, then listen to it, and then delete it, the claim is that you have stolen the music. The dividing line here seems arbitrary and difficult to pin down. In every case, you had the same auditory experience. In the latter two cases, you had the same sequence of bits stored in memory, the same instructions execute on your processor. Yet only in the latter case have you stolen something. So, what is the property? What, exactly, is it that you have stolen? The fact that this isn't completely trivial to answer is my justification for claiming that there are, at the very least, some shades of grey in this issue.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#413

Post by hbags »

krasin wrote: post #66
hbags wrote: post #23

Earlier 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…

DRM is not slavery.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#414

Post by gsnedders »

etherealG wrote: post #389
petercooper wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The background on this issue: http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ and rationale: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences

thanks very much. am i right in that the main reason for this is that forking is undesired? how is that helpful to an open system?

The view is that forking of specs leads to a multitude of specs, thereby making interoperability harder, and ultimately making the system less open.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#415

Post by aidenn0 »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #92
aidenn0 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "Open Web"? AFAICT the term "Open Web Platform" is only 3 years old, and before that "open web" (not capitalized) just meant all the freely implementable standards, which makes your first sentence circular. We've had non-free things in the web since GIFs, and flash is currently used for a lot of the things that EME will be used for. I don't endorse EME on principle, but it is inevitable at this po…

http://www.w3.org/standards/ W3C standards define an Open Web Platform for application development that has the unprecedented potential to enable developers to build rich interactive experiences, powered by vast data stores, that are available on any device. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One…

Thanks for pointing to that. Clearly DRM violates the "available on any device" part of OWP, since some devies will not be able to implement DRM.

Like I said, I'm opposed to this, I just wasn't sure if it was the w3c's job to make this happen (In any event the web hasn't been truly open since 1993 when NCSA Mosaic added the patent-encumbered GIF format, so an open web is a goal to strive for rather than something we have ever actually had).

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#416

Post by smaudet »

jscheel wrote: post #387
duncan_bayne wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are the same thing. The exact same thing. All you're quibbling about is that you don't like where the pricing is set for the region in which you live.

And I sure as heck don't justify stealing just because you don't like the price.

No post body was provided.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#417

Post by smaudet »

jonhendry wrote: post #362
psionski wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad times we live in when creating culture is labeled "labor", "work" and so forth... About the "stealing" part - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/lady-gaga-jack-whit... artists are more than happy to let anyone experience their art, it's the producers that have a problem with it. I guess this is what you get when you allow business-minded people to define what being human is all about...

"It's sad times we live in when creating culture is labeled "labor", "work" and so forth." It's sad when idle consumers come to believe they are entitled to the product of another's labor for free.

Its sad when idle business men think its labor in the first place.

That'll be 5 bucks, you read my comment. Pony up.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#418

Post by smaudet »

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#419

Post by smaudet »

talmand wrote: post #410
sp332 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#420

Post by smaudet »

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…

Except the law is not ethical - if it were ethical we would never need to change it.

The term 'deserve' implies something ethical. Your statement here is so much horseshit - nothing is 'deserved' because of the law, it is only legal because of the law. It is their legal money, but it is not necessarily their deserved money.

Just because someone slips in a by-clause that lets them legally rob a bank every fortnight, doesn't make that money their deserved money, or the robbing of the bank ethical.

Post reply on HN