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

W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 314 posts

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#261

Post by cleversoap »

Zigurd wrote: post #113
marcosdumay wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters because of two things: 1 - We'll lose the W3C. We'll have to either create another standards body, or go back to the 90's situation when nobody agreed on anything. 2 - There are a few places where actualy reading the data somebody sent to you is a crime. Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them, at least for now…

> Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them Browsers have plug-in architectures. DRM systems are inherently proprietary. Leave them to implement proprietary plug-ins.

Oh sure, that's the logical solution.

In reality though these control freak moves only "work" (for them) if everybody is forced to adopt. Another site another plugin type situation will shift a lot of people to non-drm content providers, whether on principle or maybe just plain old apathy. I'm sure browser makers could streamline this process so that it's a minimal hurdle to install a plugin but if it's optional then we have the option to avoid it and that is exactly what those goddamn morons would like to stop.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#262

Post by pitchups »

waqf wrote: post #203
wdewind wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my company, and the things I'm saying don't represent the opinions of my employer. To your question, is it "ok," I couldn't provide the answer as I don't own the copyright. My statement was that I wish we lived in a world without copyright. The rules would be very different, and thus we would act and compete differently. As is, brand is an important asset for a company. I think you know all this. I also thin…

What do brands have to do with copyright law? Or are you also advocating for changes to trademark law?

It seems counter intuitive and even foolish to suggest that you could increase innovation and creativity by getting rid of copyrights and patents. But there is a great great example of an industry that actually thrives in both sales and innovation, despite not having any copyrights or patents - the fashion industry.

This TED talk explains it quite well : http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#263

Post by _j5l3 »

jonahx wrote: post #8
cyrus_ wrote: post #3

The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]: "A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's…

This news makes me so sad. Also: The more things progress, the more and more sense RMS makes.

What is RMS in this context? Googling got me nowhere.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#264

Post by diminoten »

ctiothy wrote: post #254
snowwrestler wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only punishes users if it is badly implemented. I doubt many users of Steam or Netflix feel punished.

I can't watch my Netflix account on Linux without using some Wine distribution because of the Silverlight DRM. I'd say I feel pretty punished on that end.

Yeah well your use case doesn't fit the "many" qualifier that was mentioned in the comment you replied to.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#265

Post by ramigb »

Fuck the greed, the amount of work that will be wasted from both sides of people trying to implement DRM and others who are trying to bypass DRM should be spent on something more useful like agreeing for once at already implemented standards and making them work cross browser, or implementing new better solutions, but no, it's important to protect Miley Cyrus' songs or the universe will collapse.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#266

Post by sounds »

_j5l3 wrote: post #263
jonahx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This news makes me so sad. Also: The more things progress, the more and more sense RMS makes.

What is RMS in this context? Googling got me nowhere.

We're talking about DRM and content protection, so RMS' 1997 short story seems apropos:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#267

Post by chinpokomon »

vlad003 wrote: post #243
chinpokomon wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Netflix and Stream could both operate without DRM. If content providers don't want to provide their content to open systems, that is their concern, not that of the middle men. Adding a DRM standard just placates to corporate wishes to control content. This has the chilling effect to prevent fair use, or worse it can be used to lock up content that should otherwise be open and free.

It is the concern of the middle men, though. If content providers aren't willing to provide content, then the middle men will have no reason to exist. You can't have Netflix without any movies or shows on it.

If content owners want to leave money on the table, that is their prerogative. Assuming there was no Netflix, et al., it would just drive more gray market piracy. That isn't something content providers want. As it happens, DRM or not, piracy happens. I don't see this standard changing that. You are also assuming that there would be no available content without DRM, but if traditional content providers couldn't sell their product to consumers anymore, I think it is more likely that non-traditional content providers, those that agree to distribute content that isn't encumbered with DRM restrictions, would become more successful. It is a shift from having content force feed to us by corporations, to a system where independent creators have greater exposure. I don't need their content and I'm less likely to consume it if they insist on locking it up. I do believe in paying for the content I receive, and I would continue to do so if the stream didn't have DRM.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#268

Post by 8note »

pdonis wrote: post #178
cbhl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that three of the largest browser makers -- Microsoft, Apple, and Google -- all have arms that deal heavily with media companies. I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but if it's implemented reasonably (think Steam or Netflix), then many consumers are willing to deal with it. EME was what enabled Netflix on ARM-based Chromebooks, for example; and I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at…

I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all. In other words, you are willing to give up freedom to get--what, exactly? Movies? Music? Eye candy? I confess I simply can't understand this point of view. People are willing to hand over the Internet to DRM and the media corporations because they can't live without the "entertainment" that Hollywood provides? People are willing to have their computers pw…

If you don't plan on using your laptop for anything outside of entertainment, being able to rewrite the software on the micro that controls the battery charging circuit is not particularly relevant or useful.

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#269

Post by robmcm »

So implemented DRM will still need to be supported on different platforms and browsers, and after the H264 crap what are the chances of that happening?

They would be better off having some sort of plugin archetecture that allows this kind of development for specific platforms...

Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

#270

Post by bowlofpetunias »

wavefunction wrote: post #246
maggit wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM-free is the way to go, and has been the way for music on iTunes since March 2009 ( http://www.macworld.com/article/1137946/itunestore.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Movement_against_D... ) I seem to remember reports that iTunes sales increased quite a bit as they removed the DRM, indicating that removing DRM does indeed make the most business sense, not just the most moral sense or whatever. T…

They only went DRM free in response to pressure from Amazon who began selling DRM free MP3s. I am not a fan of DRM at all but I believe that if a "content owner" wants to encumber their own creation with it, they should have that right and freedom.

No, they should not have that "right and freedom", because being a "content owner" is not some natural god given right.

Copyright is something that is granted to someone by society for a purpose. Encumbering a creation with DRM defeats that purpose.

Sure, anyone has the "right and freedom" to add DRM to anything. But in that case anyone should also have the right and freedom to break the DRM and redistribute the content.

Post reply on HN