Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
An anonymous coward writes:
"In March, 2013 Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, proposed adopting DRM into the HTML standard, under the name Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Writing in October 2013, he said that "none of us as users like certain forms of content protection such as DRM at all," but cites the argument that "if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C" as a reason for considering the inclusion of DRM in HTML.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has objected, saying in May of last year that the plan 'defines a new "black box" for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user'. Later, they pointed out that if DRM is OK for video content, that same principle would open the door to font, web applications, and other data being locked away from users.
public-restrictedmedia, the mailing list where the issue is being debated, has seen discussion about forking HTML and establishing a new standard outside of the W3C."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday February 17 2014, @11:51PM
That's all fine and dandy.
Or, at least, it would be if it weren't for the rampant and flagrant theft of intellectual property going on today -- very real theft on an absolutely unimaginable scale.
No, I don't mean torrents or the latest reincarnation of Napster.
I mean the wholesale raping and pillaging of the public domain.
The real pirates aren't the pimply-faced kids and the cheapskates passing around a shaky cellphone video of the latest blockbuster or TV episodes of some fake reality show; no, it's the copyright cartels.
When they start to show some respect for intellectual property rights, I might start to think about showing them some in turn. Give us back Steamboat Willie, Ravel's Bolero, The Matrix, and everything else created before 2010, and we'll talk.
Until then, copyright as it actually exists today is an unconscionable restriction on the freedom of expression.
Fuck that noise.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:42PM
I'm with you except:
When they start to show some respect for intellectual property rights, I might start to think about showing them some in turn. Give us back... everything else created before 2010, and we'll talk.
Four years is WAY too short a term, and it's never been that short. I'm publishing The Paxil Diaries as a book, and the first chapter was published on the net in 2003. If copyright were 5 years, Random House could just print the damned thing, make a shitload of money, and I would get nothing.
I have no problem with you reading my book for free (see my sig) but I would have a BIG problem with you making money on MY work without me getting any compensation whatever.
Isaac Asimov didn't earn a dime on Foundation for ten years; the publisher had no marketing money. I'm having the same problem with Nobots, I get raves and the only two complaints are the cover art (one guy) and some of the "big words" (two women; "Are those real words? Can I look them up in the dictionary?"). I don't expect to get rich off of it, but I expect nobody else to, either.
Ten years is a REALLY short time, son, unless you're only 20. A twenty year copyright term (as it was before 1900) would work, that would put everything before 1994 in the public domain. and 1994 was like yesterday.
I'd also like to add that copyright should only apply to works "affixed in a permanent medium" meaning e-versions of everything would be free, counted as advertisement for the physical object that holds the content.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 1) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:37PM
Sorry -- that was a typo.
I meant, 2000, with my choice of The Matrix (1999) meant as the bounding example. Fourteen years, as I recall, was good enough for the First Congress, and I daresay it's more than good enough in today's faster-than-ever Internet age.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:54PM
Yes, fourteen isn't bad, especially if you could renew for another 14 like it was back then. I'd also have it roll back to needing copyright registration and requiring a copyright notice for the work.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:58PM
2010?! You want copyright to last 4 years? At least give them 10, dude.
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.