They got perfectly subverted. I hope they revoke it, can somebody open a petition? I'll sign it!!!
W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
271–280 of 314 posts
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there's nothing compelling plugin developers to support all OS/browser combinations, so no, in practice it likely won't be OS-agnostic. This scheme basically just creates a special class of plugins; these plugins clearly won't be OS-agnostic, because they can't -- that's the whole point of the exercise: to restrict playback to devices that are fully authorised/controlled from top to bottom, with the browser pipin…
Isn't this the same with all software? There is never anything mandating that anybody supports your OS or browser of choice. If I want to watch netflix or play GTA5 on my haiku box I'm SOL as it is unless there is a business case to be made for doing the port. This actually makes things easier. For example netflix currently uses silverlight for their streaming, this means that in order to watch netflix you need somet…
> Isn't this the same with all software?
That's exactly the point, the case is NOT so with HTML and JavaScript. A webapp I write in HTML and JavaScript is OS agnostic!
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most DRM systems the information is distributed encrypted. The decryption keys are given to technology developers who have specifically promised to obey the DRM rules, as well as to make their technology hard for users to understand or modify so that the users can't easily undo the restrictions or extract the decryption keys. Hence a browser developer or OS developer or developer of whatever software is in questio…
I see no way how an open source system can implement any effective DRM standard while staying open source. If a proper open source system has a component that enforces DRM, and is functional when I download it, then it includes those keys; but gives me an unconditional right to use and modify it. And I am physically able to modify it, un-implementing those restrictions. If part of the system cannot be modified by me,…
> If part of the system cannot be modified by me, then the whole is not open source
So would you say that firefox is open source now? If they implement this as a plugin, what makes it technically different from using Flash?
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#274Maybe I missed the point here, but firstly, browsers are free to choose to implement some parts of the W3C recommandations right ? and secondly, if the browser you use is implementing the DRM constraint, it's just a browser level restriction right? That mean you can either use a plugin that will fetch the blocked content or use an other browser to do it ?
This is doomed before being born (or I missed something).
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#275The 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…
> It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable. I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does n…
"From a UX perspective this seems no different from Netflix putting their content behind a login."
That depends on where you think UX ends. That login will work fine from within an open source browser and/or OS you compiled (and possibly wrote or tweaked) yourself.
I haven't read the article, but if that DRM works, it wouldn't run in your browser on your OS, as content providers would not trust them. Chances are that your Chrome, Firefox, or Safari extensions wouldn't even work with the DRM (at best, they would get disabled on protected (from you) pages.)
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#276Web is all about hollywood now, it seems!
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cont…
Well no, being a content owner isn't a natural god given right... please list the natural god given rights that humanity has decided a consensus on?
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#278Oh, hi Minitel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel), long time no see.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't recommend it: the name and logo are trademarked, and even if you replaced those, if anyone noticed the rest of the copying, you'd be the laughingstock of the internet. Who'd want to buy your product then?
Zynga doesn't particularly seem to care about that kind of thing and they're doing pretty ok...
Zynga only had one profitable year in 2010. They have lost $600 million since then.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable. I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does n…
The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web, a system for disseminating information publicly and globally to all those who may benefit from it. By standardizing DRM for video, they are giving legitimacy to a technical kludge that is designed specifically to prevent the dissemination of information. There are legitimate reasons why someone may wish to save a video to their hard drive, just like they can save an imag…
> The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web
At least they were.