Tim Berners-Lee: We need to re-decentralise the web • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Berners-Lee: We need to re-decentralise the web

#201

Post by robmcm » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 10:35 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #176

robmcm wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC fights hard enough to win the rights to show this content, if they didn't the content owners would go to the other channels, Sky, ITV, Channel 4, 5 or even create their own distro like HBO. 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 t…

BBC as a distributor still has way more influence than a single individual. By rejecting DRMed content they'll send a strong message to the publishers. It works in other cases, so I see why it can't work with video as well.

Doesn't appear like they do have influence http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/17/bbc-drm-w3c

Re: Tim Berners-Lee: We need to re-decentralise the web

#202

Post by robmcm » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 10:41 AM UTC

fafner wrote: post #189

robmcm wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather have a seamless experience in the browser than having to switch to native apps all the time. 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

So you'd rather give up on the open web and turn it into a proprietary system? Just for a seamless experience? Sorry to say this. But that's just plain stupid. The web is not proprietary, not an app, and only to some extend controlled by the w3c, which is much more than Microsoft, Google, and Apple.

> The web is not proprietary, not an app, and only to some extend controlled by the w3c, which is much more than Microsoft, Google, and Apple.

Well lets see if DRM makes it into HTML5 then.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee: We need to re-decentralise the web

#203

Post by shmerl » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 6:50 PM UTC

robmcm wrote: post #201

shmerl wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBC as a distributor still has way more influence than a single individual. By rejecting DRMed content they'll send a strong message to the publishers. It works in other cases, so I see why it can't work with video as well.

Doesn't appear like they do have influence http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/17/bbc-drm-w3c

It only says that they "don't feel the requirement will change". It says nothing about their potential influence. I'd say they are just chickening and don't have guts to stand up against crazy Lysenkoist publishers which insist on DRM. It doesn't mean they can't - they just don't want to. That was the whole point. As long as distributors would continue cowardly proliferating DRM, the situation will remain as is.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee: We need to re-decentralise the web

#204

Post by Executor » Tue, Feb 11, 2014, 7:06 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #198

chroem wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free software ; the term is free software. In other words, software that respects your freedom. Refer to this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...

This is a language battle which will never, ever be won, not even with geeks, let own real people. Invent a new term ("liberated software"), or let it go. It is this sort of ideological pedantry that holds back FOSS adoption.

Provide better justification rather than "its my opinion".

Re: Tim Berners-Lee: We need to re-decentralise the web

#205

Post by lukifer » Tue, Feb 11, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

Executor wrote: post #204

lukifer wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a language battle which will never, ever be won, not even with geeks, let own real people. Invent a new term ("liberated software"), or let it go. It is this sort of ideological pedantry that holds back FOSS adoption.

Provide better justification rather than "its my opinion".

It's a mental "snap-to-grid" problem. The average American hears the word "free", and they immediately think of $0, absent a specific pre-existing linguistic context (free country, free speech, free range). Because software is something that is frequently paid for as a product on a shelf, a non-enthusiast is always going to hear the $0 meaning in their head, even if they've been educated as to its other meaning.

At a high layer of abstraction, neural connections work probabilistically, firing in the path most likely to be a useful pattern; hence, most people will tend to assume "free" means "as in beer". However, a new term like "liberated software" will not trip this pre-existing wiring, forcing a new pathway that doesn't have to compete with the conditioning created by a lifetime of marketing messages ("Free Checking! Free Estimate! Free For The First Year!"... etc)