Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM United States Your Rights Online

FSF Supports Today's Boston March Against DRM In HTML5 (defectivebydesign.org) 89

Atticus Rex writes: A small artist-led group called Ethics in Tech is joining the long-simmering struggle between streaming video giants and Internet freedom activists over whether the Web should include Digital Rights Management in its technical standards. This Saturday, Ethics in Tech will lead a march on the W3C, the body -- led by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee -- that decides on Web standards.
The Free Software Foundation is promoting the march, and their "Defective By Design" site is sharing this quote from the march's organizers. Dear W3C: we demand you comply with UNESCO and international civil and political rights. Halt EME -- ensure the protection of a secure, accessible, and open web. Make ethical standards or stand on the wrong side of history.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSF Supports Today's Boston March Against DRM In HTML5

Comments Filter:
  • by what about ( 730877 ) on Saturday May 13, 2017 @08:15AM (#54410281) Homepage

    Even if you cannot go to the march you can support the cause by messaging, spreading the news and letting fellow citizen know the issue.

    Engage on the issue with your friends, it is not useless, it is our world.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      But is the cause right and just? DRM protects media company profits by making piracy difficult. As long as the DRM does not spy on me or cause other harm, there's nothing wrong with it.

      • But is the cause right and just? DRM protects media company profits by making piracy difficult. As long as the DRM does not spy on me or cause other harm, there's nothing wrong with it.

        And how can you check that it's not doing that since it's not open? No harm in using closed source stuff if that's not ment to not harm you? How about the Intel ME / AMT bug? This is not about piracy, it's about security.

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          And how can you check that it's not doing that since it's not open? No harm in using closed source stuff if that's not ment to not harm you? How about the Intel ME / AMT bug? This is not about piracy, it's about security.

          It's about security? Really? You going with that? The alternative is Flash! For fuck's sake, man, Flash. That's what you're advocating for in the name of security? Flash?

      • by Z80a ( 971949 )

        It is not a very good idea because it violates one basic rule: you never make the pirate product better than the original product.
        As you pointed out, it makes difficult but not impossible, which means that as soon your DRM gets cracked, the pirate version will not be hampered by the DRM while the original, paid for one will.

        Things like netflix are a much better weapon against piracy because they simply simplify the process of buying the original so much, your laziness gets you.
        But the fact netflix is not an

      • by Anonymous Coward

        >But is the cause right and just? DRM protects media company profits by making piracy difficult. As long as the DRM does not spy on me or cause other harm, there's nothing wrong with it.

        I've seen this sentiment lately and I just don't understand it. Study after study has shown that people who pirate more also buy more media, so the whole "protecting profits" is the wrong way around. Thankfully, some media companies understand this and THEY THEMSELVES put some media up for free download. Because it helps

        • As long as the DRM does not spy on me or cause other harm, there's nothing wrong with it.

          The Intel ME that is required to use DRM on Intel CPUs is the part that can spy on you.

          I've seen this sentiment lately and I just don't understand it.

          Since the ME has full control over the boot-process, firmware, CPU, RAM, peripherals, screen buffer, network card, and can operate without the knowledge of the firmware or operating system, it can spy on you.

          Any agency that can persuade Intel to sign their modified code can replace the ME with their own malicious version.

        • by murdocj ( 543661 )

          All the "people who pirate more buy more" statistic shows is that some people are more driven to consume more media. There's no indication that if people were unable to pirate that they'd buy less media. Or that pirating causing people to become greater consumers.

    • by grumbel ( 592662 )

      If DRM goes into HTML or not won't make much of a difference, if anything it will open things up a little since you will be able to use your browser more often to watch video instead of a proprietary App. It's not like the FSF is wrong on being against DRM, but it has little chance of success here.

      In general I am not really happy with much of what the FSF has been doing lately. Their intentions are noble, but when you want to actually change things you can't just say "No", you have to provide a realistic al

      • since you will be able to use your browser more often to watch video instead of a proprietary App

        not on my OS of choice...

    • Well, good luck explaining to the average person what the hell you're marching about / advocating. Try to explain, and watch their eyes glaze over. The disinterest of average people regarding stuff like this is something that geeks seem to underestimate time after time. The importance of free and open source software is another one of these "eyes glazing" topics.

      • Try to explain, and watch their eyes glaze over.

        Try to explain "the importance" using logic other than "I believe!" and you'll have more luck. Try understanding that others may intelligently disagree and you'll have them listening to your side more. Both the anti-DRM and open software movements come across as pretty rabid. It's a turn off.

    • And how exactly are we supposed to "spread the news" if we're also against crap like FaceBook, Twitter, etc?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        And how exactly are we supposed to "spread the news" if we're also against crap like FaceBook, Twitter, etc?

        Usenet, of course!

  • The FSF can't win this one. There is too much money on the other side. You have Google, Netflix, every major web browser, Microsoft, and even the inventor of the web himself. What is going to stop that kind of support? the clueless public that doesn't have the slightest concept of how any of this works? Some FSF march that will be lucky to get a small number of geeks? No.

    The open internet was a quirk of history. It was doomed from the start. It may have started as a wild west, an open digital fronti

    • The FSF can't win this one. There is too much money on the other side.

      If all that matters is who has more money this issue would have been quashed in the early 90's. Today the question on the table for W3C today would be mandatory laser scanning of eyeballs or mandatory browser APIs to give websites with too much money ring0 access to everyone's systems.

      You have Google, Netflix, every major web browser, Microsoft, and even the inventor of the web himself. What is going to stop that kind of support?

      Before commenting further please review W3C's member list.
      https://www.w3.org/Consortium/... [w3.org]

      Also review open principals that W3C advertises adherence to.
      https://open-stand.org/about-u... [open-stand.org]

      There has to be "Broad consensus" ...

  • If you don't like, how the content is sold to you, then do not buy it . Very simple, eh?

    But, no, as a good "Illiberal" — and you can't be one without an Authoritarian screaming inside you — you have to make sure, no one else can buy it either.

  • I hate it when people making purely subjective, moral arguments disguise it as being factual. There is no right or wrong "side" of history one could be on.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13, 2017 @09:10AM (#54410451)

      "I'm right, therefore, everyone else is not only wrong, but also they're Hitler."

    • There is no right or wrong "side" of history one could be on.

      That sure sounds like someone who's never read up on history... or are you arguing those in favor of slavery were not on the wrong side of history?

      • Are you making an attempt to equate the presence of DRM with the presence of slavery? If not, understand that the "side" referred to here is in context, as the correct side of the DRM issue to be on and your comment pedantry.
        • understand that the "side" referred to here is in context, as the correct side of the DRM issue to be on and your comment pedantry.

          I was merely pointing out there there is a right and a wrong side of history. It's far less subjective than he would like it to be.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Standardization of DRM in web browsers is a great thing. It provides a standard, that means as soon as wide spread support is available, it will be impossible to change without f-ing up billions of devices. The standard will have to be something that can be supported on any device or else it will fail. Then you just have to crack it once and we're done with it.

    This is a total non-issue.

    I have read the standards proposed and all of them seem to have clear vectors of attack to exploit weaknesses. This isn't l

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13, 2017 @09:53AM (#54410565)

    Once camel has nose in tent, rest of camel soon follows. End game is transfer of control away from end user. Presently end user controls display of web content: ad blockers, tracking blockers, blocking scripts trying to disable right click menus or "save as", blocking popups, all possible today. The DRM-on-web goal is partly about streaming content but end game is DRM for all page content, to deny local control and thus local ability to block ads, tracking, and script imposed limitations.

    The web where the end user was in control was not acceptable and is being reeled back. Goal is TV 2.0. Goal is clawing back control temporarily in the hands of end user after web caught certain interests off guard. Neither govt neither corporations want end user control of web browsing experience. If a few will find a way around it does not matter: the majority will follow the herd. It suffices to steer the herd.

    • So, you're expecting that they'll start insisting that end users not be able to run Greasemonkey scripts since they might infringe some content creator's rights to present things on your browser as they envision, then, soon after outlaw that pesky view source option?

  • by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Saturday May 13, 2017 @11:05AM (#54410789)

    Ethics in Tech

    I generally think DRM and standardized DRM is not a good idea. But hell would freeze over before I would support any group called "Ethics in Tech", no matter what their position may be.

    People who use terminology like that are saying clearly that they are unwilling to engage in open, honest debate with other people, and instead want to verbally beat up anybody they disagree with.

    Note that a group of "developers, thinkers, artists, and digital citizens" calling themselves "Ethics in Tech" might well come down on either side of the DRM debate, since many "creative people" believe that copying their works without their permission is "unethical".

    • So what would you call it then? Despite egregious twisting by modern spin doctors (cf. "Restoring Internet Freedom"), words still have meaning. If not "Ethics in Tech", then what? It's already as brief as it can possibly be. More words would muddle the statement. They've specifically mentioned UNESCOs stance in their public statement, as quoted by the FSF (and appearing in The Fucking Summary). They clearly believe that DRM is unethical. So they call themselves "Ethics in Tech".

      Now I don't know anything els

      • Despite egregious twisting by modern spin doctors [...] words still have meaning.

        Correct. And this group claims that opposing DRM is a question of "ethics". How is it a question of "ethics"? How do their actions and demands relate to specific, identifiable ethical principles? The message they are delivering is “You Don’t Own Our Voices”. How does incorporating DRM into commercial products or into W3C standards translate into anybody "owning their voices"?

        this group's beliefs about DRM clea

  • And should be moved to Cuba.

    They're what you get when one man drinks the Marxist kool-aid in college and decides to apply that philosophy to computer software development and project governance, of all things.

    Of course, it's no surprise rms looks like a hipster. He was a leftist cuck before it was cool.

    • Or Venezuela. He can be president Maduro's tech czar, and make Venezuela a test bed for all his libre software. Once he turns all of Venezuela's programmers into slaves, forcibly converted to the church of St iGNUtious
  • The next war is never like the last war.

    But try telling that to the general birthed in the nineteenth century who builds the impenetrable defense wall that can be easily outflanked by a fast-moving tank or an aircraft. The admiral whose big gun ships will fall victim to the submarine, the carrier or the guided missile.

    The app is built into every device that has an Internet connection. The 4K UHD TV on your living room wall. The smart watch on your wrist. No Netflix. No sale. No content protection. No Netf

"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware." -- Norm, from _Cheers_

Working...