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.'"
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.
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.
Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (Score:5, Interesting)
For once I agree with Stallman (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (Score:4, Interesting)
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: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: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)?
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: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.