Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

posted by mattie_p on Monday February 17 2014, @10:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-can't-beat-'em dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pbnjoe on Monday February 17 2014, @11:36PM

    by pbnjoe (313) on Monday February 17 2014, @11:36PM (#1360) Journal

    But DRM is useless and unnecessary, and there are countless examples of this. Though literally every videogame in existence (except for Diablo III, but the game is botched from how they managed it) is pirate-able (as the DRM is stripped very rapidly from the product), Steam is massive, and devs, publishers, as well as other distribution systems are doing fine. Along with games, music, movies, and every other digital form of entertainment you can think of can be pirated (and are), and yet no industry has died, much as groups like the RIAA, MPAA, etc want you to think is going to happen.

    All DRM has done is be a two minute annoyance for bootleggers and crackers (and none for pirates), and affect legitimate customers negatively, sometimes to the point of completely preventing access to the media, even though no wrongdoing has occurred.

    As for the latter bits of your post, yes, pricing needs to be not so ridiculous, but no, just keep DRM out. It's only put in for the most part by corporations who want to treat everyone like dirty criminals who owe them the shirt off their backs or the poor CEO will starve, and it's terribly offensive. For this lone creator you mentioned, they'll just have to understand that's not really viable (I can explain better later if needed). Treat your customers right, and they'll treat you right back (just check out GOG, for example).

    Anyway, this has been hashed out repeatedly in many discussions.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by pbnjoe on Monday February 17 2014, @11:39PM

    by pbnjoe (313) on Monday February 17 2014, @11:39PM (#1362) Journal

    My apologies if the diction of the third paragraph is a bit rough, but like I said, I get offended about it.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by everdred on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:45AM

    by everdred (110) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:45AM (#1401) Homepage Journal

    corporations who want to treat everyone like dirty criminals

    I don't think even they think it's about piracy. It's about locking as many consumers as possible into their platform and extracting a stream of future sales from them, not to mention extracting licensing fees from hardware manufacturers.

    --
    We don't take no shit from a machine.
    • (Score: 1) by pbnjoe on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:55AM

      by pbnjoe (313) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:55AM (#1405) Journal

      True. I don't believe the two trains of thought are mutually exclusive, however. Dealing with current "lost" sales (aka "how can we get more money", not that they're losing it) with their piracy argument (which they don't even believe, I think, the argument's just used as leverage) and lock-in for the future money-taking :)

    • (Score: 1) by greenfruitsalad on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:49AM

      by greenfruitsalad (342) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:49AM (#1472)

      my ONLY concern with a DRM that works is that i will lose access to MY media when the company enforcing/checking licenses goes bust. e.g.: if adobe shut down, half of world's ebooks would become unreadable. that is something that is unacceptable to me. once i paid for something, i shouldn't have to fear that.

      • (Score: 1) by everdred on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:02PM

        by everdred (110) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:02PM (#1670) Homepage Journal

        That's reasonable. Your options are to not buy DRMed content, or buy it and then break said DRM.

        Obviously, there are problems with both options.

        --
        We don't take no shit from a machine.