6 ms·

I find it very surprising that the organization supposedly promoting the open "web for all" is even considering baking in DRM handcuffs. It seems so short-sigh

by acabal 14y ago

I find it very surprising that the organization supposedly promoting the open "web for all" is even considering baking in DRM handcuffs. It seems so short-sighted. Copyright is just a bunch of laws this society agrees on today. The web is not about today's laws, social mores, or profit motives, but of connectivity, sharing, and freedom of information and expression. When I see things like this even being considered, I sometimes think that we don't deserve such freedom. If we're going to start DRM'ing media, why not just DRM the entire web page and be done with it? Why send HTML over the wire at all when we can send an encrypted blob? That'd be the ideal world for the media companies--total end-to-end secrecy, with users just being warm bodies with credit cards. BBC, Netflix, MS, and--of all companies--Google should be ashamed to be involved in this.

anoncow 14y ago
profit and social responsibility don't go together. Google has every reason to be interested in a locked-down web. That way it could be sure of all the revenue that youtube movie premieres would bring. Sadly, a more responsible way of doing the same thing will not be as profitable.
- acabal 14y ago
  I totally agree. But w3c should be standing up for the open web, not the profit motives of its sponsors. If they're going to start transparently considering whatever restrictive practices their sponsors demand, then they become nothing more than an industry interest group versus what they ostensibly are now, which is a group that's at least partially community-driven.
  - justincormack 14y ago
    The W3C has always alas been sponsor led, and is a poor organisation, and not what the web should have.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    W3C is an industry consortium of for profit companies. It is not some utopian political organization.
gph 14y ago
>BBC, Netflix, MS, and--of all companies--Google should be ashamed to be involved in this. Why should any of them be ashamed? They all have copyrighted digital content or at least have sites that host copyrighted content. They all clearly gain from this. I know whenever DRM is mentioned everyone likes to get out the pitchforks and yell about "openness" and "freedom of information". But let's be honest, the majority of media would not be made if it was going to be handed out for free. Everyone seems to express this idealized utopian world where content is freely distributed, everyone contributes, and we all live in electro-social bliss. Sorry, until the Singularity occurs or the Age of Aquarius dawns that world doesn't exist. >Copyright is just a bunch of laws this society agrees on today. The web is not about today's laws, social mores, or profit motives, but of connectivity, sharing, and freedom of information and expression. When I see things like this even being considered, I sometimes think that we don't deserve such freedom. I'm not going to try and defend copyright completely, it clearly needs a lot of fixes to it, but this is just a bunch of random hogwash. Furthermore how does some sites enabling DRM limit anyone else's connectivity, sharing, or freedom of expression? Just because BBC starts limiting their iPlayer to license holders doesn't mean I can't have my own iPlayer website with my own open content that I share with everyone. You've created a rather weak strawman argument here. >If we're going to start DRM'ing media, why not just DRM the entire web page and be done with it? Why send HTML over the wire at all when we can send an encrypted blob? What are you even trying to communicate here?? HTTPS is basically transmitting an encrypted blob. The difference is that it (usually)contains HTML; which is an open standard that everyone uses so that you only need one program(browser) to interpret and display the blob from many sources(websites). Nothing about enabling DRM will change this, it will only limit those who want their website to be limited. The only thing that is really questionable about this is whether W3C should be using resources to help standardize/implement such a feature. Given that the browsers will likely have to spend a lot of time/resources on making their software compatible with the new standard is a bit unfair. I'll just say these content provider companies are going to use DRM methods to restrict use of their content one way or another. Whether it's through private plugins like silverlight, flash, etc. or though an open standard, all of the major browsers will have to be compatible to get users. I think it makes more sense from a security and usability perspective to push it into an open standard, but I can see both sides of the argument.
rayiner 14y ago
Copyright is 300 years old. Before that, restrictions on copying were enforced in England through publishers monopolies. We have had some sorts of protections on copying almost as long as printing presses have been available to make copying possible. And separating Google out in this is ridiculous. Google wants to make money off content too. They just do it by using other peoples content to spy on you and sell you out to advertisers. Yeah, far more noble than Sony just charging me for a copy of some movie. Indeed, I'd argue that the inability to effectively protect content online has made things worse. It has lead to companies like google that monetize privacy instead of companies that directly monetize creative works, because the former is logistically easier.

by acabal 14y ago

anoncow 14y ago

profit and social responsibility don't go together. Google has every reason to be interested in a locked-down web. That way it could be sure of all the revenue that youtube movie premieres would bring. Sadly, a more responsible way of doing the same thing will not be as profitable.

acabal 14y ago
I totally agree. But w3c should be standing up for the open web, not the profit motives of its sponsors. If they're going to start transparently considering whatever restrictive practices their sponsors demand, then they become nothing more than an industry interest group versus what they ostensibly are now, which is a group that's at least partially community-driven.
- justincormack 14y ago
  The W3C has always alas been sponsor led, and is a poor organisation, and not what the web should have.
- rayiner 14y ago
  W3C is an industry consortium of for profit companies. It is not some utopian political organization.

gph 14y ago

>BBC, Netflix, MS, and--of all companies--Google should be ashamed to be involved in this. Why should any of them be ashamed? They all have copyrighted digital content or at least have sites that host copyrighted content. They all clearly gain from this. I know whenever DRM is mentioned everyone likes to get out the pitchforks and yell about "openness" and "freedom of information". But let's be honest, the majority of media would not be made if it was going to be handed out for free. Everyone seems to express this idealized utopian world where content is freely distributed, everyone contributes, and we all live in electro-social bliss. Sorry, until the Singularity occurs or the Age of Aquarius dawns that world doesn't exist. >Copyright is just a bunch of laws this society agrees on today. The web is not about today's laws, social mores, or profit motives, but of connectivity, sharing, and freedom of information and expression. When I see things like this even being considered, I sometimes think that we don't deserve such freedom. I'm not going to try and defend copyright completely, it clearly needs a lot of fixes to it, but this is just a bunch of random hogwash. Furthermore how does some sites enabling DRM limit anyone else's connectivity, sharing, or freedom of expression? Just because BBC starts limiting their iPlayer to license holders doesn't mean I can't have my own iPlayer website with my own open content that I share with everyone. You've created a rather weak strawman argument here. >If we're going to start DRM'ing media, why not just DRM the entire web page and be done with it? Why send HTML over the wire at all when we can send an encrypted blob? What are you even trying to communicate here?? HTTPS is basically transmitting an encrypted blob. The difference is that it (usually)contains HTML; which is an open standard that everyone uses so that you only need one program(browser) to interpret and display the blob from many sources(websites). Nothing about enabling DRM will change this, it will only limit those who want their website to be limited. The only thing that is really questionable about this is whether W3C should be using resources to help standardize/implement such a feature. Given that the browsers will likely have to spend a lot of time/resources on making their software compatible with the new standard is a bit unfair. I'll just say these content provider companies are going to use DRM methods to restrict use of their content one way or another. Whether it's through private plugins like silverlight, flash, etc. or though an open standard, all of the major browsers will have to be compatible to get users. I think it makes more sense from a security and usability perspective to push it into an open standard, but I can see both sides of the argument.

rayiner 14y ago

Copyright is 300 years old. Before that, restrictions on copying were enforced in England through publishers monopolies. We have had some sorts of protections on copying almost as long as printing presses have been available to make copying possible. And separating Google out in this is ridiculous. Google wants to make money off content too. They just do it by using other peoples content to spy on you and sell you out to advertisers. Yeah, far more noble than Sony just charging me for a copy of some movie. Indeed, I'd argue that the inability to effectively protect content online has made things worse. It has lead to companies like google that monetize privacy instead of companies that directly monetize creative works, because the former is logistically easier.