RMS Urges W3C To Reject On Principle DRM In HTML5 320
gnujoshua writes "In a new article, GNU Project founder Richard M. Stallman speaks out against the proposal to include hooks for DRM in HTML5. While others have been making similar arguments, RMS strikes home the point that while companies can still push Web DRM themselves, the stance taken by the W3C is still — both practically and politically — vitally important: '[...] the W3C cannot prevent companies from grafting DRM onto HTML. They do this through nonfree plug-ins such as Flash, and with nonfree Javascript code, thus showing that we need control over the Javascript code we run and over the C code we run. However, where the W3C stands is tremendously important for the battle to eliminate DRM. On a practical level, standardizing DRM would make it more convenient, in a very shallow sense. This could influence people who think only of short-term convenience to think of DRM as acceptable, which could in turn encourage more sites to use DRM. On the political level, making room for DRM in the specifications of the World Wide Web would constitute an endorsement in principle of DRM by the W3C. Standardization by the W3C could facilitate DRM that is harder for users to break than DRM implemented in Javascript code. If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.'"
The Acronym Master strikes again (Score:5, Funny)
It's like a secret code, just for us: RMS Urges W3C To Reject On Principle DRM In HTML5
Re:The Acronym Master strikes again (Score:5, Funny)
It's kinda like this:
"Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM's PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM."
However, to be really pedantic, these aren't acronyms, they're initialisms [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I've always called it "scuzzy" as well. Apparently [wikipedia.org], it was supposed to go by "sexy" but that didn't quite happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Meta commentary (Score:4, Funny)
So many acronyms! It's a good thing I'm in the industry, or I'd have no idea what that headline means.
I imagine trying to communicate this to my friends and family: RMS (sounds vaguely British) urges WC3 (the successor to Warcraft II) to reject on principle DRM (Dr. Mario) in HTML5 (they've probably heard that buzzword by now)
A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:3, Insightful)
If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.
Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH the choice becomes: stay free and HTML5 compliant or (try to) restrict viewers relying on 3rd party technology which won't work well and forever on millions to billions of devices.
DRM on HTML is the best way to make all HTML an ex-standard.
Re: (Score:2)
So is Stallman the anti-DRM guy, or the "free" software guy? In this case the two are obviously in conflict, so it's interesting to see which side he chose.
Re: (Score:2)
No dichotomy when the aim is 100% free systems, not 100% free infrastructure built to accommodate non-free plugins which makes the result non free.
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you live in something called "reality," in which case we're looking at a case where the two are clearly in conflict: either accept DRM into an open spec, or accept the fact that closed plugins will continue to be a major part of the web ecosystem.
Pretending their is a third alternative for the sake of argument is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.
Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.
..why oh why do people think that html5 drm would be open? WHY? how the fuck would that even WORK?!?
technically, if the html5 drm went through, it would be just another plugin system. that's also why the whole discussion is pretty useless. the thing to fear from open web viewpoint is that one of the solutions manages to really be multi platform, from all mobile os's to desktop - because imagine a world where 98% of sites were made with flash because flash worked everywhere. imagine a world where every fucki
Re: (Score:2)
I was on a website only an hour ago where the idiots had blocked right-clicking with a javascript alert message "Our images are copyrighted". It's like none of their programmers knows about right-clicking to "open link in new tab".
Re: (Score:2)
It's like he's on a Mac and stuck with only one mouse button, you insensitive clod.
Wait, are you saying I can press down on that massage wheel on the top of my mouse, and things happen?
Re: (Score:2)
because imagine a world where 98% of sites were made with flash because flash worked everywhere. imagine a world where every fucking site had right click disabled because "hey it's cool and protects our images!"(IT DOES FUCKING NOT, it's just annoying).
Usually I discover this by accident while doing something completely unrelated to saving any image at all... at this point I download the picture out of principle.
Re: (Score:3)
..why oh why do people think that html5 drm would be open? WHY? how the fuck would that even WORK?!?
technically, if the html5 drm went through, it would be just another plugin system.
Well, it might be just a plug-in system, if the standards committee guys are lazy, or the vendors have already declared that's what they're writing, but it doesn't have to be.
All you need for DRM is:
* A way to prove the identity of endpoints.
* A way to validate code signing (prove the code running is the expected client code).
* A way to generate a session key to encrypt any given key.
* Some straightforward rules about never writing the unencrypted stream to local cache, or otherwise making it easy to get a
Re: (Score:3)
Do you realize how impossible it is to make it actually impossible to work around?
Why would that be a goal? From what I hear you can get the stream from the current Netflix setup if you try hard enough. For sure it runs in a VM and writes to the virtual vid card and sound card without problems, so it can't be all that secure.
Matching the existing weaknesses is obviously adequate. A standard only needs to offer what the vendors ask for, not cure malaria and stop nuclear proliferation.
Re: (Score:3)
..why oh why do people think that html5 drm would be open? WHY? how the fuck would that even WORK?!?
You _can_ have open DRM, if you reduce DRM to "Digital Rights Management" and further rely on legal protection instead of trying to create unbreakable encryption. For example, DRM for movie rentals: All you'd need is a movie player that downloads a movie, adds some trivial xor "encryption" which it removes during playback, and deletes it when the rental time is over. That's Digital Rights Management that can easily be implemented in Open Source software, and just hard enough to break for the DMCA act to ap
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:5, Insightful)
No he's right and he's doing the right thing.
Consider that there is going to be no DRM in the HTML5 spec itself, just negotiation channels for it. So if you want DRM there will have to be closed-source client-side apps in either case. Therefore, why condone it through support of the negotiation channels? All it could do is ease the spread and development of DRM apps.
Re: (Score:2)
All we can hope to do is to make them run correctly - and across all devices. If you don't like DRM - no one is forcing you to use DRM services/apps.
Do you honestly think that you're going to win this battle - and that high-budget content producers are just going to start forking over
Re: (Score:3)
No I'm trying to eliminate the shoehorning of plugins and use common open codecs like WebM or OGG. I'm also hoping that content producers are just going to start forking over all their content without any kind of protection (like Amazon music store, most of iTunes, and GoG for starters) or go out of business.
Once browsers have the means to replace Flash and Silverlight (which they basically do right now) maybe they'll go away. Look at how badly Flash has been hurt just because one particular brand of smartp
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how badly Flash has been hurt just because one particular brand of smartphone doesn't support it.
But that didn't make anything more "open" - it just moved the proprietary stuff to needing to be done special for iOS devices. This is the exact wrong direction to go in. If there was an HTML5 DRM standard, services could have used that to work for iOS. Instead, they need to create their own proprietary iOS application. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every platform did this?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry that sounds too much like "become the enemy to beat the enemy." If iOS weren't a closed platform with curated app selection, you can bet everyone would have installed Flash in under 10 seconds - to match every non-curated platform out there.
Re: (Score:2)
If you still have a plugin, how does that make it easier to develop DRM'd apps? It seems like you're arguing both sides.
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there will be a common DRM negotiation protocol among all browsers. I want those DRM developers to work hard to make their shitty plugins work, not provide a universal API for them.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you want DRM there will have to be closed-source client-side apps in either case.
Client apps which can exist outside the generic web browser --- and perhaps replace it. Think of the Netflix tile on the Win 8 Start page. Now imagine a one-stop subscription service for books, magazines, newspapers, music, video and games. all instantly accessible without ever once opening Firefox or Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like proprietary hell (or Apple's nirvana).
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman is right on this. The W3C should not endorse DRM. If that means that it requires Flash for certain things, then certain companies have to be OK with using Flash to display their content to their customers. The W3C shouldn't endorse DRM, that is a battle that deserves to be fought.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, we should definitely all miss out on the benefits of DRM (like getting to watch content that I wouldn't get to watch otherwise because they won't sell it without DRM) because of YOUR political ideals. God forbid we should have a feature that YOU don't use.
We should all just use features that YOU think are the right ones ...
If everyone behaved like you say, nothing would ever get done. If you want an example of where everyone objects to anything that doesnt' fit their agenda please watch sessions of U
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about me, Flamey McTrollerson. The W3C exists to promote open standards. DRM by definition is not open. Look over this page and tell me which of these points relates to the W3C endorsing DRM:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission [w3.org]
DRM is a choice for the market to make, not the open standards body. If someone wants to sell your coveted program on a DRM-laden DVD, great, go out and buy it. But don't standardize that bullshit on the open web.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight. Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.
It's a big win for the walled gardens of the app and the app store.
It's a big win for the internet enabled HDTV, the video game console, the Roku set top box. It's a big loser for the "open web" browser when the content people want --- and are willing to pay for --- is only available elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.
Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.
I normally have a kneejerk reaction against RMS ranting but in this instance I agree with his position.
Flash is no longer universally assumed or available to be installed. Silverlight is and always shall be DoA. There is a real cost in electing to use DRM if it requires something all users don't or can't have.
The trends with all of this tablet/phone nonsense is to lock down execution in the browser environment. You simply do not have the option of running any plugins if you wanted to on some "modern" sys
Television (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't rest until the web is like television. Unidirectional, full of corporate messaging, highly polished emptiness. Think back to the web in the late 1990's. They're already 80% of the way there.
Re:Television (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is exactly why RMS is correct and it is vitally important for the W3C to reject the notion of DRM as part of the HTML standard.
Re: (Score:2)
then they can go watch television and leave the internet the f*** alone.
I disagree, but I don't like DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be quite happy if they'd standardize the DRM in HTML5. That way there would be one common DRM to crack instead of everyone having their own peculiar variant.
No, it'd still be fragmented (Score:5, Informative)
And... (Score:3)
If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.
Aren't both of the above the *desired* configurations for closed-source and/or media/content providers - and possibly the government?
[ Now, where is my tin-foil hat? Okay! Who took my frelling hat? ]
Browser vs OS (Score:2)
If we standardize it in the browser (HTML5) - we won't have to implement it in the OS.
I don't like DRM either - but I would like my services like Amazon, Hulu, Netflix or whatever to work across all my devices. As much as I would love to have these services simply unprotect all their content - I don't think they'l
Re:Browser vs OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. If we standardize it in the browser, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on free web browsers such as Firefox or Chromium... and of course, if the DRM were properly implemented, this could result in the distribution of web browsers that could not be run on free operating systems such as GNU/Linux, unlocked ChromeOS, or after-market blends of Android.
DRM requires that every single piece of code that handles unencrypted content, from the browser, to the operating system, to the hardware drivers, and even the firmware on that hardware, be signed and authenticated such that it will uphold the restrictions of the DRM. Yes. By definition that means that Flash has a broken DRM implementation.
For once I agree with Stallman (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For once I agree with Stallman (Score:4, Interesting)
How is adding a DRM interface to the spec and different than what you already have?
Because ease-of-use and widespread standardization aids adoption of technologies? It's unfortunate enough that people tie themselves to third-party solutions with DRM; integrating this functionality more closely into core standards will make it just that much more appealing for someone with a borderline interest in using DRM to deploy it (instead of deciding it's not worth the extra hassle of working outside everyone's-browser-can-view-it standards). DRM is used on flash videos today; but do you want to end up where the entire plain text content of webpages is DRM'd by default (because it's easy, and some retarded control freak at corporate HQ decided he liked it)?
Doesn't work (Score:2)
Of course it should be rejected, you don't include something that doesn't work because it is impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Understanding DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people think that DRM is about them as if it is supposed to keep movies from appearing on The Pirate Bay. It's ineffective at preventing this as it takes just one leak, any leak of a cracked or "analog hole'd" to be shared to render the whole scheme as ridiculous. And it is, ridiculous, as evidence by the fact that movies and the like are generally more easily obtained via TPB than commercially.
But that's not really the point of DRM. DRM prevents 3rd parties from being able to make a buck off the content being protected. Companies are extremely averse to liability, and even though cracked content is widely available, trying to make a buck off of it is nearly impossible to do without opening you up to legal liability.
DRM isn't really about you, it's about irritating you in order to prevent other companies from improving your experience with accessory services.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. The player manufacturers long ago so the writing on that wall.
Pretty much all of them but sony are easy to defeat (by design).
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about DRM-as-copy-protection. Copy-protection has never really worked in the history of computing. (But would anyone pirate an uncontrollable-bitrate stream anyhow, rather than the Bluray?)
But DRM also prevents my ISP from inserting ads into my Netflix stream! Anyone think that companies like Comcast wouldn't do just that?
And DRM also gives the MPAA folks the comforting illusions they need in order to unclench and let me watch the shows I want to watch in some legal fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
For nosy ISPs, you just need encryption. (Although given the complexity of the video codecs used for such streams, the idea of inserting content into one on the fly would require a staggering amount of resources—so much so that they're guaranteed to lose money on it, so it's a non-issue.)
And as for the MPAA's comforting illusions, Stallman points out that they'd fall down fast—you wouldn't be allowed to do it on an open-source kernel, so "me" excludes Linux users... and probably Android, which i
Re: (Score:2)
(Although given the complexity of the video codecs used for such streams, the idea of inserting content into one on the fly would require a staggering amount of resourcesâ"so much so that they're guaranteed to lose money on it, so it's a non-issue.)
Given that Comcast already makes a chuck of its money by injecting ads into digital cable streams, I wouldn't put it past them.
Stallman points out that they'd fall down fastâ"you wouldn't be allowed to do it on an open-source kernel, so "me" excludes Linux users
I don't follow that at all. There's nothing stopping e.g. Netflix from using a freely distributable, open source client for their DRM (of course, it would only send a stream to the one it signed, not to your unsigned modified version). Now, you couldn't do that with GPL3 I don't think, but GPL3 seems to be unwelcome in the core of Linux because of such restrictions, and other lice
Re: (Score:2)
It's morally less difficult to argue for DRM in this case but technically just as stupid.
Re:DRM for transient content ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as the publishers get a foot in the door, everything will be a rental with a limited lifespan.
Re:DRM for transient content ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as the publishers get a foot in the door, everything will be a rental with a limited lifespan.
I wish I had mod points. The goal of DRM is to force everyone to pay for everything, every time, everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of DRM is to own the channel, not it's contents. The content owners are being played.
It's to make your data useless unless you buy a phone from the market owner, your computer useless unless you buy your OS from the stack writer, and your hardware and the rest of your software from a companies that are his partner.
Oh, and it's also to make documents not leak, to the police, the press of to those pesky hackers on the Internet.
Re:DRM for transient content ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DRM for transient content ... (Score:5, Informative)
Implementing something openly means anyone can implement it. If any user could implement it, then any user could just as easily fake implementing it, lie to the previous block of code in the chain, and immediately divulge the keys to themselves. DRM cannot allow this to happen, thus the keys AND the code must both be protected from the user.
Just because you don't have DRM does not mean users can freely access your system. Conditional access is completely separate from DRM. Conditional access limits initial access to the content. DRM prevents what users can do once they do access the content. DRM is not even to protect against users violating your copyrights by redistributing your content, as time and again, history has shown that all DRM systems will be broken, and broken in short order. People who illegally download content never have to deal with DRM. DRM is merely to artificially restrict how the otherwise legitimate paying customer can consume the content.
Re: (Score:3)
"Theft is the issue and all the people that are claiming its about 'openness' and 'freedom' are liars and what they are actuallying saying is 'I want to get content for free'."
That's right, that's how Microsoft and Real and Walmart stole my money by killing their servers holding the DRM keys so I can't listen the music I paid for.
By the time I found the floppy that held my backup, had no drive and couldn't afford to buy one; was also homeless for part of the time when there were emails about changing accoun
Re:DRM for transient content ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This crap is already being done with proprietary garbage like Flash and Silverlight as RMS mentioned. Let it stay that way, keep it out of web standards. If a company wants DRM bad enough, they'll find a way to shoehorn it into their site no matter what. It will still be easily broken to hell and back and effectively worthless--but at least that worthless crud won't be in the standard like (*gasp*) WEP. Not saying that WEP was bad-intentioned, but it's been found to be broken in ways that any HTML DRM will take only a fraction of the time to be broken. DRM practically exists only to be broken.
Re: (Score:2)
All DRM is worthless (Score:4, Informative)
Bad is a subjective concept, and DRM can't be it (at least, not for everybody). The following are objective characteristics that do apply to all forms of DRM:
1 - It doesn't disturb pirates in any way
2 - It destroys value for your paying customers
3 - It makes the communication channels proprietary
Re: (Score:3)
What can you do with a bare kernel though? The GNU apps are the best part IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask every android device or busybox router what you can do without GNU.
GNU apps are a bunch of incompatible hacks on old tools from real UNIX. They are fucking obnoxious at best as fucktards don't seem to understand their retarded arguments are mostly done otherways already and entirely incompatible with anything other than gnu tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh busybox is just a collection of GNU apps under one binary, itself licensed under GPLv2...and Android? Well, there's a reason I'm using a GNU/Linux phone instead of an Android.
Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. The most popular Linux distribution, called Android, uses Java as their userland. Not GNU.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Could very well be the case. One way or another, GNU usage is in minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Android/Linux is quite popular, what's your point? GNU/Linux is still an OS with a Linux kernel and the most central userland tools being GNU.
Re: (Score:3)
GNU/Linux is not an operating system. It's something that some distributions call themselves, like Debian. Ubuntu on the other hand is not GNU/Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
GNU/Linux is not an operating system. It's something that some distributions call themselves, like Debian. Ubuntu on the other hand is not GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux is an OS in the sense that Android is an OS - both really describe a family of related OSes. Ubuntu certainly qualifies as GNU/Linux, at least at present. What they call themselves is irrelevant. Samsung doesn't really mention Android in much of its advertising, but that doesn't mean that they don't make Android phones (among others).
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's relevant what they call themselves. Why should anyone else than Canonical and the Ubuntu community decide that? GNU is not important enough to the average Ubuntu user that the operating system should be called GNU/Linux. Ubuntu is Ubuntu. If some other distribution wants to call themselves GNU/Linux then that's fine. Mac OS X has a ton of GNU utilities installed, that doesn't mean that it should be called GNU/Mac OS X.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what tools it was built with? If I build an operating system with MSVC++, do I have to prefix "Microsoft/"? I rather assume I'd get sues by MS for trademark infringement if I did so. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have asked him in the Q&A thread, I don't think he'd answer honestly anyways...but I think those are not his real positions on the topics, but he doesn't want those things to be illegal because laws against child porn, bestiality etc. are used as WMDs against software & Internet freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
I consider children sexual attraction to older people impossible because children are de facto subject to so much crap that they can't express their own personality and wishes anymore;
even if we went all back to desert islands, I think consent is not enough for such acts, consent can be easily tricked out of ADULTS, never mind youngsters. So Stallman has done a shallow analysis on the problem, in other words he's terribly wrong.
Yet I don't understand your post. Do you refuse math if stallman writes that 2+2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No reason it can't be both at once. In fact, ad hominem attacks are almost always irrelevant to the subject under discussion: "DRM is opposed by Stallman, but Stallman eats babies and has icky hair, so yay for DRM!"
Re: (Score:3)
Wait... you promote Ron Paul while promoting the government regulation of markets and infringements of natural rights by enforcing the copyright monopoly?
Hypocrisy much?
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No DRM means no content.
You do realize there was content before DRM was invented, and most content today has no DRM?
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:5, Interesting)
My own personal battle against DRM is driven by my anger over not being able to read ebooks visually. Instead, I translate ebooks to audio files using text-to-speech tools. The entire audio path I use, even the TTS engine, is FOSS software, and some of it (the speed-up code) I had to invent and write myself. You wont hear people like me complaining, "Why don't you guys work harder to make our lives better." I'll change the world to conform to my own needs, thank you very much, at least until DRM arrived. DRM destroys my ability to help myself, and I can't even begin to tell you how much that pisses me off.
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM is required to get them fully on board.
Even assuming that were true, I'd rather have no content.
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:5, Insightful)
just because you want content doesn't mean that I and everyone else should have to have spyware and crippleware on our systems.
DRM goes way beyond just playing some stupid videos - it's an integral plank in the war against general purpose computing.
WTF do you think Microsoft's Restricted Boot is for? it's certainly not for protection against viruses - its purpose is to control what you can install or run on your computer.
at the moment, it can be disabled on x86 computers and motherboards, but it CAN'T be disabled on ARM-based Win8 tablets. The Win8 tablets are a trial-run to get people used to the idea that they can't install other operating systems - or software bought outside of MS's app store - on the hardware they've bought.
same for iphones and ipads - you pay for them, but you don't get to really own them, or decide what you want to install or run on them. You can only run what Apple allows you to.
stock android devices are also full of spyware (for google, the manufacturers, and for telcos), but at least it's possible to install software for sources other than Google's app store (either by USB cable or from other app-stores like FDroid), and it's also possible to root them and replace the stock OS with cyanogenmod etc or even a non-Android Linux. not perfect, and they're still spy devices by default, but better than nothing.
and this is NOT just limited to phones and tablets - this is the future for PCs. Apple are already mutating OS X into an IOS style app-store only device, and microsoft is pushing for the same with Restricted Boot.
when you buy hardware with such restrictions you're voting for it with your wallet. you're saying "yes, fuck me over, take my money but retain ownership of what i've bought". people like you would buy a turd on a stick if you were told it was a better hot-dog or that you really needed it for the Full Flavour Experience<tm>
so, yes, life is about principles. partly because principles in themselves are important, but also because principles affect results.
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
That's why all digital music is currently under DRM, as is all Javascript, photographs, recipes, comics, web pages, newspapers etc.
Really... the only content areas still fighting the DRM fight are:
Video
eBooks
software
And software's easing off in favour of a walled garden approach.
No DRM doesn't mean No Content... it means No Content From A Few Rich Content Merchants (not producers). The content will still be produced, just differently. However, with DRM in place, that's no longer an option. Then the content will be produced, but the limit is put on consumption rather than on limiting means of production.
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
Having done standards-committee work, I'd phrase that differently. The standard is what's out there in the field, that you have to code against. All the committee produces is a document, which you hope enough vendors adopt (and interpret similarly!) to become standard.
Netflix and Amazon video and the rest of the commercial streamers are all contractually bound to use DRM. So it doesn't matter what the W3C says, the significant chunk of internet traffic that is legal video streaming will have DRM. Nothing the committee can possibly do will change that contractual reality. Better to standardize it as best you can then to childishly ignore it.
Re: (Score:3)
THAT is the why DRM is bad and needs to go away.
Do you even have the most basic idea of what a technical standard is or does? Standards committees do not make moral pronouncements, and do not determine what happens on the internet. They are not priests; they are not lawgivers; they merely hope to describe a set of interfaces that you can write code against.
Re: they merely describe (Score:3)
Ah, here we go again. The myth that technology and technological standards can be politically neutral. A convenient myth, since it we can then absolve ourselves from any responsibility for how that technology is used.
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:4, Informative)
DRM is a way of forcing ALL sales to be rentals.
except, no discount for being just a rental. you pay full price but still don't get to actually own what you bought.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
Yes DRM is coming on the web. Oh wait, DRM has been with us since the first days of Flash player, Shockwave player and Real player, Silverlight Player. RMS is against DRM in the standard. The companies can do whatever the hell they want, but the W3C must not endorse DRM in the standard. It's not only a symbolical stance it's a political stance as well.
And a good one at that.
Those that want DRM develop their own solutions. But the W3C should not endorse in any way such developments.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with no "big industry" content on the web. User content is far superior.
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we bother posting reporting on RMS.
While I think he's a smelly hippie with no appreciation of reality, he's still an interesting smelly hippie, because he provides a clearly reasoned argument for his (predictable) position for a given issue.
Re:Fascinating ... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS doesn't use that word, "open" a lot.
Doesn't use "greed" a lot.
Those are probably your preconceptions of what he says.
RMS usually talks about freedom, as in not giving away your freedom.
DRM requires you to give some other entity control over your devices, more than what you have. That means giving away freedom, and that's why he is against it. I agree with him, also.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Not being able to figure out the difference is what will doom you."
Thinking there is a difference, or that you have choice, will doom us all.
Re: (Score:3)