161–170 of 205 posts
The idea of an open, free and decentralized web created by all for all is one of the main reasons I became a Mozillian. I invite all that think this is a good idea to check out their local Mozilla communities and help carry this mission onwards. You can get guidance on how to get involved with Mozilla by following the instructions and filling the form at http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/ =)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm This is false. Those companies can use the HTML without DRM with the same success. No company ever needs any DRM.
The BBC can not show the majority of their content on the iPlayer because the rights owners won't let them without DRM. The BBC needs DRM to be able to give us that content.
"The rights owners" are in a market, and if the market simply refused to buy broken products, they would have to either deliver a non-broken product or go bankrupt, there is no way in which they could force people to buy broken products in order to sustain them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It stops plenty of piracy as without it piracy could be as easy as a single click from a place like Netflix, Google Music, etc. Just because it's easy for you to circumvent doesn't mean it's easy for the everyday user. But totally agreed that it doesn't belong in web standards.
Everyday users fail at saving a youtube video. And someone who knows how to rip a youtube video usually also knows about pirate bay or other pirate websites.
It's great that Berners-Lee is saying this, but he'd have retained a lot more of his authority to pronounce on the future of the Web had he not thrown his weight behind the W3C's horrible plan to put DRM into HTML.
Let's crucify his for that :) I hear what you are saying, but there is also reason for drm. Or we will have flash forever. What I am saying, I at least can understand why he did it.
It's great that Berners-Lee is saying this, but he'd have retained a lot more of his authority to pronounce on the future of the Web had he not thrown his weight behind the W3C's horrible plan to put DRM into HTML.
Let's crucify his for that :) I hear what you are saying, but there is also reason for drm. Or we will have flash forever. What I am saying, I at least can understand why he did it.
I'll rather have a reasonably cross-platform plugin with possible open-source implementations than 100% closed plugins with no cross-platform support which cannot be implemented in open-source.
DRM on the open web is all bad. If you compromise on that because you want Netflix in your browser and not an app, that makes you an asshat, and part of the problem.
We need open standards, we need to defend them, and we definitely don't need people undermining them on factually incorrect basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flash and Silverlight are dying anyway. So it's up to the movie industry and not up to us to bend over. And you know at least Flash was separated from the browser and ported to several systems. DRM in HTML5 will mean that Google, Apple, Microsoft will simply bundle their DRM modules and the free software world can fuck off. DRM in HTML5 is far worse than the status quo.
I don't share completely your assertions. In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm. This is just enabling them to do business. I believe that free and open, given some semblance of equal playing field will always win. Just to be clear, if they came and say, no drm in html, I would stand behind that as well. I just accept their judgement that this was necessary at the momen…
Is that the same kind of DRM that enabled businesses to use the printing press, radio broadcasts, TV sets, vinyl records, cassette tapes, audio CDs and MP3s?
Tim Berners-Lee needs to withdraw his statement, acknowledge his mistake and publicly apologize before his voice can carry any weight again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BBC can not show the majority of their content on the iPlayer because the rights owners won't let them without DRM. The BBC needs DRM to be able to give us that content.
No, that's completely the wrong way around. The rights owners could not sell anything to the BBC if the BBC were to simply refuse to buy anything they can not publish without DRM, and not selling anything is not a particularly good business model in most cases. "The rights owners" are in a market, and if the market simply refused to buy broken products, they would have to either deliver a non-broken product or go ban…
People, the majority of people don't know what DRM is, they don't care, they just want to watch content.
One of the biggest problems in tech and forums like these is that everyone thinks they are so much more significant than they are, they don't realise they are such a tiny minority of the consumer spectrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They currently are leaving it, there is a lot of content I can't get through a web browser that I can through a native app or through a plugin player.
And that's fine. If they want DRM they should write a proprietary app or plugin. But we shouldn't turn the web into a proprietary app controlled by Microsoft, Google, and Apple.
The web is a proprietary app controlled by the w3c, who are mainly Microsoft, Google and Apple.
You can believe it's an open platform, but if that's the case it should be easy for you to block DRM ;) Good luck