8 ms·
It's great that Berners-Lee is saying this, but he'd have retained a lot more of his authority to pronounce on the future of the Web had he not thrown his weigh
by MikeTaylor 13y ago
It's great that Berners-Lee is saying this, but he'd have retained a lot more of his authority to pronounce on the future of the Web had he not thrown his weight behind the W3C's horrible plan to put DRM into HTML.
- desireco42 13y agoLet's crucify his for that :) I hear what you are saying, but there is also reason for drm. Or we will have flash forever. What I am saying, I at least can understand why he did it.
- viraptor 13y agoIf we were sure flash stays forever, we could just finish implementing Lightspark. With DRM that's going to be much harder.
- fafner 13y agoFlash and Silverlight are dying anyway. So it's up to the movie industry and not up to us to bend over. And you know at least Flash was separated from the browser and ported to several systems. DRM in HTML5 will mean that Google, Apple, Microsoft will simply bundle their DRM modules and the free software world can fuck off. DRM in HTML5 is far worse than the status quo.
- pekk 13y agoWhatever we may WISH, Flash is still everywhere. And still necessary, for example, to play sounds across browsers
- fafner 13y agoAnd that has absolutely nothing at all to do with DRM...
- indrax 13y agoLegacy browsers sure, but deciding whether to add DRM to HTML presupposes a browser that plays sound according to the standard.
- fuzzix 13y agoIndeed, Ireland's Revenue service has a flash "application" to manage your requests.
- desireco42 13y agoI don't share completely your assertions. In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm. This is just enabling them to do business. I believe that free and open, given some semblance of equal playing field will always win. Just to be clear, if they came and say, no drm in html, I would stand behind that as well. I just accept their judgement that this was necessary at the moment for things to work. I don't think only my view is right, so, I might be wrong here, but this is what I believe.
- soperj 13y agoThey don't really. Any stream can be captured. So if I can play the audio or video, I can capture it in a format that I can share, drm just makes it a little harder.
- shmerl 13y ago> In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm This is false. Those companies can use the HTML without DRM with the same success. No company ever needs any DRM.
- stormbrew 13y ago> And you know at least Flash was separated from the browser and ported to several systems It really is astounding, and bears so much emphasis, that the proposed DRM module system is actually worse than Flash.
- admax88q 13y agoYes let's. Standardizing DRM extensions is bullshit. No new browser can ever be standards compliant when being compliant requires having the appropriate binary blob as distributed by the approved parties.
- bct 13y agoIf "standards compliant" means implementing every feature then no new (or existing) browser will ever be standards complaint anyways. This is not a lever that can be used to force everyone to implement DRM.
- admax88q 13y agoBut any agreed upon public standard should be implementable by any vendor. DRM extensions do not fit this bill. If only a select few can implement it, then why call it a standard?
- bct 13y agoOnly a select few can implement specific DRM modules, but nobody is talking about standardizing them. The standard (that is being proposed) in this case is an interface that the actual DRM modules hook into. Anyone can implement the interface.
- admax88q 13y agoThe "implementation" of an interface is the code that actually does stuff when that interface is called. In this case, the implementation of the DRM hooks are those proprietary DRM modules. This "standard" shuts everyone except the select few in the dark. Without have the appropriate plug-in, you cannot access the content.
- bowlofpetunias 13y agoYes, and the reason for DRM is exactly the same as for centralization: central control and exploitation. You cannot credibly argue for "building new architectures for the web where it's decentralised" (especially not with the arguments he uses with regards to corporate and government power) and at the same time endorse leaving the endpoints open to centralized control. I can understand why some people who do not like it would still support DRM in HTML. I cannot understand why he does.
- shmerl 13y agoThere is no reason for DRM whatsoever. At least no valid reason.
- higherpurpose 13y agoYou make a false choice. It should be the industry's choice whether to stop using DRM or having their DRM based on a dying platform that fewer and fewer people will be using.
- josteink 13y agoI hear what you are saying, but there is also reason for drm. Or we will have flash forever. I'll rather have a reasonably cross-platform plugin with possible open-source implementations than 100% closed plugins with no cross-platform support which cannot be implemented in open-source. DRM on the open web is all bad. If you compromise on that because you want Netflix in your browser and not an app, that makes you an asshat, and part of the problem. We need open standards, we need to defend them, and we definitely don't need people undermining them on factually incorrect basis.
- RexRollman 13y agoI was thinking the same thing. Thank you.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]