4 ms·

1. I don't agree that this is true at all. The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a

by wdewind 13y ago

1. I don't agree that this is true at all. The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard). I don't agree with copyright law, but it is law. We currently have a web that provides the ability to companies to protect their data via implementation, this simply provides a spec to do it in a different way. It does not fundamentally change the user experience of the web. 2. Yes, like in the United States. Just like receiving stolen goods is a crime. No offense, but when you say things like "If you create a code for "don't read this data" to be sent over the web, disobeying it will become a crime there." I don't think you fully understand how DRM currently works and how it would work using this standard. It is simply a standard people can implement. Edit: as some of you have pointed out, the phrase "copyright-compliant" is somewhat meaningless. I should've chosen my words more carefully. I meant "copyright-enforcement-enabling."

saraid216 13y ago
> The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard). No, what he means is that, if we stop listening to the W3C because of this, the W3C will no longer matter. So either we won't have a standards body, or we will need a new one.
- wdewind 13y ago
  And why would we stop listening to the W3C because of this?
  - gavinlynch 13y ago
    Exactly. There are countless standards issued by the W3C that are completely ignored by Browser Vendors at large. Yet it's still the most relevant consortium on the matter. Conversely, there are countless features introduced by Browser Vendors that do not exist in the W3C's specs. (And some of those are even eventually picked up by the W3c.) I honestly don't think people understand how the Standards Body's work, and how their specs propagate into actual products that people use on a daily basis. Many companies have cherry-picked what to implement and what not to. This is not new. If anything, it's the norm. Vendors will continue to do this as long as the W3C will exist, and can continue to do so in this case, without destroying the W3C or making it an invalid body. This particular argument is totally bunk.
  - jeroen 13y ago
    It was your own suggestion that spawned this thread. You wrote: "I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does not imply that browsers have to adhere to it." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6491428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6491428 marcosdumay is responding to that by saying "It matters because ..."
    - wdewind 13y ago
      Sorry, fair point. My point that you quoted was that anyone could roll a browser that did not include the DRM standard (or any standard for that matter). And many do already. I don't think this implies that the W3C is dead.
      - pdonis 13y ago
        anyone could roll a browser that did not include the DRM standard And how many people will use it, apart from outliers like people who post here? The vast majority of people use one of the Big Three: Firefox, Internet Exploder [no, that's not a typo ;)], and Chrome. Furthermore, if the Big Three implement a DRM standard, then web pages that want to "protect their content" will simply use the DRM standard, and it won't matter that Joe's Really Cool Browser doesn't implement it; that browser simply won't be able to view the pages. A few outliers like us will rant and rave; anyone else who tries it will say "Joe's Really Cool Browser Sucks" and go back to using one of the Big Three.
betterunix 13y ago
Copyright-compliant standard? How is the existing standard not compliant with copyrights? This is not about making a copyright-friendly web. This is about attacking the openness of the web.
yk 13y ago
DRM can not work. Assuming that you don't come up with a plan, which prevents reading data, while allowing the reading of data. So if the W3C starts to write standards which defy the basis of logic, were are forced to abandon their standards, thus destroying the W3C.
schoen 13y ago
There is no sense in which DRM is "copyright-compliant" and a lack of DRM is not "copyright-compliant", and there is no sense in which copyright requires anyone to help industry create or deploy DRM.
- wdewind 13y ago
  Yeah that's true. I chose my words poorly.

by wdewind 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago

> The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard). No, what he means is that, if we stop listening to the W3C because of this, the W3C will no longer matter. So either we won't have a standards body, or we will need a new one.

wdewind 13y ago
And why would we stop listening to the W3C because of this?
- gavinlynch 13y ago
  Exactly. There are countless standards issued by the W3C that are completely ignored by Browser Vendors at large. Yet it's still the most relevant consortium on the matter. Conversely, there are countless features introduced by Browser Vendors that do not exist in the W3C's specs. (And some of those are even eventually picked up by the W3c.) I honestly don't think people understand how the Standards Body's work, and how their specs propagate into actual products that people use on a daily basis. Many companies have cherry-picked what to implement and what not to. This is not new. If anything, it's the norm. Vendors will continue to do this as long as the W3C will exist, and can continue to do so in this case, without destroying the W3C or making it an invalid body. This particular argument is totally bunk.
- jeroen 13y ago
  It was your own suggestion that spawned this thread. You wrote: "I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does not imply that browsers have to adhere to it." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6491428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6491428 marcosdumay is responding to that by saying "It matters because ..."
  - wdewind 13y ago
    Sorry, fair point. My point that you quoted was that anyone could roll a browser that did not include the DRM standard (or any standard for that matter). And many do already. I don't think this implies that the W3C is dead.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      anyone could roll a browser that did not include the DRM standard And how many people will use it, apart from outliers like people who post here? The vast majority of people use one of the Big Three: Firefox, Internet Exploder [no, that's not a typo ;)], and Chrome. Furthermore, if the Big Three implement a DRM standard, then web pages that want to "protect their content" will simply use the DRM standard, and it won't matter that Joe's Really Cool Browser doesn't implement it; that browser simply won't be able to view the pages. A few outliers like us will rant and rave; anyone else who tries it will say "Joe's Really Cool Browser Sucks" and go back to using one of the Big Three.

betterunix 13y ago

Copyright-compliant standard? How is the existing standard not compliant with copyrights? This is not about making a copyright-friendly web. This is about attacking the openness of the web.

yk 13y ago

DRM can not work. Assuming that you don't come up with a plan, which prevents reading data, while allowing the reading of data. So if the W3C starts to write standards which defy the basis of logic, were are forced to abandon their standards, thus destroying the W3C.

schoen 13y ago

There is no sense in which DRM is "copyright-compliant" and a lack of DRM is not "copyright-compliant", and there is no sense in which copyright requires anyone to help industry create or deploy DRM.

wdewind 13y ago
Yeah that's true. I chose my words poorly.