3 ms·

Just saying that DRM doesn't concern me. I don't feel it infringes on my rights, so no need to complain. It's an (my) opinion, feel free to complain as much as

by alipang 13y ago

Just saying that DRM doesn't concern me. I don't feel it infringes on my rights, so no need to complain. It's an (my) opinion, feel free to complain as much as you prefer. Of course I also feel that businesses need a legitimate means of getting paid, and I prefer them using DRM over convincing congress to let them spy on us.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
> I don't feel it infringes on my rights, so no need to complain. That's a pretty narrow criterion for complaint. How about the fact that the purpose of the W3C is to oppose everything that DRM enables? How about the fact that blind, deaf or otherwise-handicapped people have real trouble accessing DRM-crippled content? What of the fact that DRM bit-rot causes massive cultural content loss? Are you concerned by the fact that DRM remains the single biggest obstacle to widespread adoption of FOSS operating systems? Part of rational self-interest is maintaining a benevolent society in which to live. By only considering rights violations, and in particular only violations of _your_ rights, you're failing to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  I strongly agree with you in general. However, can you provide a pointer to more information about the accessibility problem? One might argue that integrating DRM with HTML5 media playback would actually improve accessibility, since it would separate the DRM from the generally inaccessible Flash-based UIs of current players.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    There is no difference between the proposal and existing closed-source, proprietary blobs like Flash. All the W3C is talking about here is standardising the interface between Javascript and those blobs. There is no way in which the presence of EME support in a browser will improve accessibility. Consider an example. Before EME, content is rendered in an accessibility-invisible Flash plugin. After EME, the exact same thing is true, only there is now a standard way for the browser to control the plugin.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by alipang 13y ago

duncan_bayne 13y ago

> I don't feel it infringes on my rights, so no need to complain. That's a pretty narrow criterion for complaint. How about the fact that the purpose of the W3C is to oppose everything that DRM enables? How about the fact that blind, deaf or otherwise-handicapped people have real trouble accessing DRM-crippled content? What of the fact that DRM bit-rot causes massive cultural content loss? Are you concerned by the fact that DRM remains the single biggest obstacle to widespread adoption of FOSS operating systems? Part of rational self-interest is maintaining a benevolent society in which to live. By only considering rights violations, and in particular only violations of _your_ rights, you're failing to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

mwcampbell 13y ago
I strongly agree with you in general. However, can you provide a pointer to more information about the accessibility problem? One might argue that integrating DRM with HTML5 media playback would actually improve accessibility, since it would separate the DRM from the generally inaccessible Flash-based UIs of current players.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  There is no difference between the proposal and existing closed-source, proprietary blobs like Flash. All the W3C is talking about here is standardising the interface between Javascript and those blobs. There is no way in which the presence of EME support in a browser will improve accessibility. Consider an example. Before EME, content is rendered in an accessibility-invisible Flash plugin. After EME, the exact same thing is true, only there is now a standard way for the browser to control the plugin.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]