4 ms·

The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web, a system for disseminating information publicly and globally to all those who may benefit from it. By standardizi

by cyrus_ 13y ago

The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web, a system for disseminating information publicly and globally to all those who may benefit from it. By standardizing DRM for video, they are giving legitimacy to a technical kludge that is designed specifically to prevent the dissemination of information. There are legitimate reasons why someone may wish to save a video to their hard drive, just like they can save an image today. There is no reason the web should be built upon mechanisms designed specifically to privilege corporate interests over the interests of those falling under fair use exemptions to copyright laws.

wdewind 13y ago
If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. But we do, and so just as you say there are "legitimate reasons" why someone may wish to save a video, there are too "legitimate reasons" someone may want to share their work in a protected manner. It's a product. If you don't like it don't buy it. There is no part of this that forces the user to view only DRM protected websites. As far as I can tell this only increases the rights of copyright holders, which, again, I think is stupid, but seems completely legal and a reasonable thing to do under our existing legal framework. Edit: it also does not seem like it will fundamentally change the user experience of the web since the things that it allows are mostly already doable, just not with an HTML standard.
- fafner 13y ago
  If some copyright holder wants his stuff DRMed then they are free to implement their own DRM plugin or App. But I don't see why we should support them. Especially when it makes our nice open web depend on proprietary closed source binary blobs. The idea was that HTML5 gets rid of Flash and similar plugins and not that HTML5 turns into a vehicle for "yet another Flash". Next thing we are adding a spy module feature because advertisers and the NSA demand it? Well at least the spy module could be free software unlike the proprietary closed source binary blobs needed for Digital Restrictions Management.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. Excellent news! So it's ok if I copy the images, CSS and HTML on your landing page for your employer for my competitor, then? Edit: I'm obviously not serious.
  - angrow 13y ago
    I wouldn't recommend it: the name and logo are trademarked, and even if you replaced those, if anyone noticed the rest of the copying, you'd be the laughingstock of the internet. Who'd want to buy your product then?
    - perrupa 13y ago
      Zynga doesn't particularly seem to care about that kind of thing and they're doing pretty ok...
      - tesseractive 13y ago
        They are?
        imdsm 13y ago
        The exec$ are doing ju$t fine I'm $ure
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        Worst. Example. Evar.
      - belandrew 13y ago
        Zynga only had one profitable year in 2010. They have lost $600 million since then.
    - FLUX-YOU 13y ago
      I think you're proposing dire consequences where there aren't likely to be any. Google copying Yahoo's front page code? Okay, that'll be in the news and everyone will have a good laugh. Some Joe Schmoe Web Developer lifting CSS/HTML from an unknown client to sell to an unknown client? Eh, not so much. This probably happens often and goes undetected.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  DRM doesn't "increase the rights" of copyright holders, it just intentionally goes out of its way to stifle everyone else. The fact that it's called "Digital Rights Management" is a bit of doublespeak, which is why the FSF encourages using the more accurate description of "Digital Restrictions Management." Although it seems the word "copyright" is also a bit of doublespeak these days. In general it doesn't go out of its way to give authors the right to control how publishers distribute copies any more, it's been co-opted as a system for publishers to deny every individual the the ability to make their own copies for any reason. If you ask me they should call it a copy-block instead of a copy-right.
- shitlord 13y ago
  What I don't understand is that if these companies want so desperately to enforce DRM, why are they using the web? A native application is better suited to what they want to do, and they are going to end up writing DRM modules in native code anyway. So why are they targeting the web at all, and why do they insist on getting something that is fundamentally closed (DRM) put into something that was meant to be open (HTML)? IMO, this is a very dumb approach. This would not be OK anywhere else. Feel free to enforce your copyright, but don't expect me to bear your burden without kicking and screaming.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Content providers want to be on the web, because that's where the audience is. If they're made to feel unwelcome on the web, they certainly will take their content away. This makes the web less useful and harms users.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      The web has had copies of that content well before the "content providers" even had a website, and it'll have copies of the content well after they decide to leave. All they can take away is the sources that actually bring them money.
    - AJ007 13y ago
      The "web" has existed in a mature form for over 2 decades. The web's success has been extraordinary in the same terms of any monumental human achievement -- the discovery of anti-biotics, the moon landing, the Magna Carta. Why would we cripple that set of features just to make a tiny group of people happy (relative to the world's population, the copyright "special interest" cartel is indeed microscopic.) And I thought web sites screwing up keyboard shortcuts was annoying..
unhammer 13y ago
> The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web At least they were.
danesparza 13y ago
"The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web"... I completely disagree. You are the guardian. Every one of us is the guardian. "Guarding the web" isn't in the W3C's mission at all: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html They design standards used internationally. That's it.

by cyrus_ 13y ago

wdewind 13y ago

If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. But we do, and so just as you say there are "legitimate reasons" why someone may wish to save a video, there are too "legitimate reasons" someone may want to share their work in a protected manner. It's a product. If you don't like it don't buy it. There is no part of this that forces the user to view only DRM protected websites. As far as I can tell this only increases the rights of copyright holders, which, again, I think is stupid, but seems completely legal and a reasonable thing to do under our existing legal framework. Edit: it also does not seem like it will fundamentally change the user experience of the web since the things that it allows are mostly already doable, just not with an HTML standard.

fafner 13y ago
If some copyright holder wants his stuff DRMed then they are free to implement their own DRM plugin or App. But I don't see why we should support them. Especially when it makes our nice open web depend on proprietary closed source binary blobs. The idea was that HTML5 gets rid of Flash and similar plugins and not that HTML5 turns into a vehicle for "yet another Flash". Next thing we are adding a spy module feature because advertisers and the NSA demand it? Well at least the spy module could be free software unlike the proprietary closed source binary blobs needed for Digital Restrictions Management.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. Excellent news! So it's ok if I copy the images, CSS and HTML on your landing page for your employer for my competitor, then? Edit: I'm obviously not serious.
- angrow 13y ago
  I wouldn't recommend it: the name and logo are trademarked, and even if you replaced those, if anyone noticed the rest of the copying, you'd be the laughingstock of the internet. Who'd want to buy your product then?
  - perrupa 13y ago
    Zynga doesn't particularly seem to care about that kind of thing and they're doing pretty ok...
    - tesseractive 13y ago
      They are?
      - imdsm 13y ago
        The exec$ are doing ju$t fine I'm $ure
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Worst. Example. Evar.
    - belandrew 13y ago
      Zynga only had one profitable year in 2010. They have lost $600 million since then.
  - FLUX-YOU 13y ago
    I think you're proposing dire consequences where there aren't likely to be any. Google copying Yahoo's front page code? Okay, that'll be in the news and everyone will have a good laugh. Some Joe Schmoe Web Developer lifting CSS/HTML from an unknown client to sell to an unknown client? Eh, not so much. This probably happens often and goes undetected.
spacelizard 13y ago
DRM doesn't "increase the rights" of copyright holders, it just intentionally goes out of its way to stifle everyone else. The fact that it's called "Digital Rights Management" is a bit of doublespeak, which is why the FSF encourages using the more accurate description of "Digital Restrictions Management." Although it seems the word "copyright" is also a bit of doublespeak these days. In general it doesn't go out of its way to give authors the right to control how publishers distribute copies any more, it's been co-opted as a system for publishers to deny every individual the the ability to make their own copies for any reason. If you ask me they should call it a copy-block instead of a copy-right.
shitlord 13y ago
What I don't understand is that if these companies want so desperately to enforce DRM, why are they using the web? A native application is better suited to what they want to do, and they are going to end up writing DRM modules in native code anyway. So why are they targeting the web at all, and why do they insist on getting something that is fundamentally closed (DRM) put into something that was meant to be open (HTML)? IMO, this is a very dumb approach. This would not be OK anywhere else. Feel free to enforce your copyright, but don't expect me to bear your burden without kicking and screaming.
- dublinben 13y ago
  Content providers want to be on the web, because that's where the audience is. If they're made to feel unwelcome on the web, they certainly will take their content away. This makes the web less useful and harms users.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    The web has had copies of that content well before the "content providers" even had a website, and it'll have copies of the content well after they decide to leave. All they can take away is the sources that actually bring them money.
  - AJ007 13y ago
    The "web" has existed in a mature form for over 2 decades. The web's success has been extraordinary in the same terms of any monumental human achievement -- the discovery of anti-biotics, the moon landing, the Magna Carta. Why would we cripple that set of features just to make a tiny group of people happy (relative to the world's population, the copyright "special interest" cartel is indeed microscopic.) And I thought web sites screwing up keyboard shortcuts was annoying..

unhammer 13y ago

> The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web At least they were.

danesparza 13y ago

"The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web"... I completely disagree. You are the guardian. Every one of us is the guardian. "Guarding the web" isn't in the W3C's mission at all: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html They design standards used internationally. That's it.