4 ms·

I upvoted this because I want that to happen, but I'm still very disappointed with Tim Berners-Lee for supporting DRM on the web, and worse still (in the long r

I upvoted this because I want that to happen, but I'm still very disappointed with Tim Berners-Lee for supporting DRM on the web, and worse still (in the long run), bringing MPAA on the W3C board. I don't know how someone who's usually fighted for Internet freedom and such can do those things.

officialjunk 13y ago
Seconded.
asharpe 13y ago
But isn't that the fundamental problem? If the web is used to countermand existing laws, then it invites further intrusion of government to uphold those existing laws. It's cause and effect. Which is a shame because it gives Government the reason to further intrude.
smokinjoe 13y ago
Because a good compromise leaves everyone upset.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  where exactly is the compromise for the MPAA?
gkoberger 13y ago
I personally dislike DRM (and think it causes piracy), however I'm not fundamentally opposed to it. An open internet doesn't mean we should be open to share people's hard work free of charge. DRM does little to stop piracy (we both know that), however to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  An open internet doesn't mean we should be open to share people's hard work free of charge. How is this an argument for DRM? All DRM does is improve the reverse engineering skills of pirates (making them more equipped to crack the next DRM) and serve as a crutch to end users, making them turn to piracy just to get DRM-free software, so they aren't treated as buffoons. I'd say DRM jeopardizing the freedom of the Internet is very much true.
- wlesieutre 13y ago
  > to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous. My biggest beef with DRM is that it makes no allotment for fair use. I'm sure most of us have encountered an irritating website that tried to block right click and ctrl-c, but it's trivial to get around it. What if it weren't? For some reason, we've accepted the idea that video is a special thing that you can't easily grab snippets of and share. I think it's mostly because DRM showed up before there were consumer friendly tools to do it (like ctrl-c for text), rather than some special attribute of video as a copyrightable work. If we accept DRM protected video, what do we say when a photographer comes around and says "Hey, why can't I protect my photos like that?" A lot of websites already try, but we have screenshots and noscript to work around it. Or further down the line, what happens when writers start to ask "Video is protected against copying, why doesn't the browser disable copying from my article?" And all of a sudden I can't copy a quote out to email to my mom without either retyping it or taking a photo and running OCR. Easier than exercising fair use on an encrypted video stream, but still an annoying extra step for something that I ought to have the right to do. In short, I don't think video should get to be special, and if you wouldn't accept DRM on every single piece of content then you shouldn't accept it on videos either.
  - userbinator 13y ago
    And all of a sudden I can't copy a quote out to email to my mom without either retyping it or taking a photo and running OCR. That is assuming that all your other software hasn't evolved to the point where it recognises "copyrighted content" and stops you from doing that... this is worth reading if you haven't already: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html "if you outlaw freedom, only outlaws will have freedom."
- Zigurd 13y ago
  DRM means handing over control of a part of a computing device to someone else. In light of recent revelations, how smart is that? So let's go to the opposite extreme and say "Sorry, but there's really no way to enforce copyright against individuals sharing copies." Let's say the industry of selling recorded performances collapses. Are we going to miss it any more than we miss buggy whips?
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    Perhaps eventually recordings will be recategorized as advertising for the live performances, food and beverages at the venue, and trademarked souvenir items. Copyright will not be enforced mainly because it limits the growth of the audience. That model, however, does not require an enormous marketing machine with a lot of centralized infrastructure. Artists could use ever-cheaper technology to record and self-promote. The music won't disappear. You'll just have to listen to a lot more mediocre stuff (that has always been there, if you really cared to look) to find something you really like. What you really lose when the record companies vanish is the gold-plating and the bozo filters. That adds some value, but probably not as much as the amount they are demanding that we pay for their vetted and polished recordings.
- thrillgore 13y ago
  >however to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous. At the heart of the EME/DRM discussions is to make certain browsers and OSes compatible with certain specifications, attributes, and elements. If there's EVER been a risk to the freedom of the Web and the Internet, this is it.
- cabalamat 13y ago
  > however to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous The purpose of DRM is to stop people copying and using digital content. The purpose of the internet is to enable people to copy and use digital content. DRM's whole point is to limit internet freedom.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    The purpose of DRM is to turn a mathematical impossibility into money. I put a note that I want you to read and keep secret into a box. Then I lock the box. Then I tape the key to the lid of the box, attach a sticky note with specific instructions on how you are allowed to use the key and the note, and give the whole package to you. That's DRM. You open the box with the key, copy the note, put the original back in the box, lock it again, burn the key, and send the box back. You still have the copy of the note. That's reality. You cannot send a message to an untrusted person in a trusted way, no matter how many trusted lock boxes you use. The instant you make it readable to the recipient, it is copyable. Your only options are to either not send secrets to strangers, or to assume that anything you send to a stranger is no longer secret. As they say, three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. The true purpose of DRM is to raise the level of difficulty for copying above the median skill level of the recipients. That way, you can buy legislation to intimidate the smartest guys and limit the supply of copies. It is strictly to reduce the burden of law enforcement to a more manageable list of suspects, from "everyone on the planet" down to "anyone with a JTAG debugging workbench".

officialjunk 13y ago

Seconded.

asharpe 13y ago

But isn't that the fundamental problem? If the web is used to countermand existing laws, then it invites further intrusion of government to uphold those existing laws. It's cause and effect. Which is a shame because it gives Government the reason to further intrude.

smokinjoe 13y ago

Because a good compromise leaves everyone upset.

throwaway2048 13y ago
where exactly is the compromise for the MPAA?

gkoberger 13y ago

I personally dislike DRM (and think it causes piracy), however I'm not fundamentally opposed to it. An open internet doesn't mean we should be open to share people's hard work free of charge. DRM does little to stop piracy (we both know that), however to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
An open internet doesn't mean we should be open to share people's hard work free of charge. How is this an argument for DRM? All DRM does is improve the reverse engineering skills of pirates (making them more equipped to crack the next DRM) and serve as a crutch to end users, making them turn to piracy just to get DRM-free software, so they aren't treated as buffoons. I'd say DRM jeopardizing the freedom of the Internet is very much true.
wlesieutre 13y ago
> to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous. My biggest beef with DRM is that it makes no allotment for fair use. I'm sure most of us have encountered an irritating website that tried to block right click and ctrl-c, but it's trivial to get around it. What if it weren't? For some reason, we've accepted the idea that video is a special thing that you can't easily grab snippets of and share. I think it's mostly because DRM showed up before there were consumer friendly tools to do it (like ctrl-c for text), rather than some special attribute of video as a copyrightable work. If we accept DRM protected video, what do we say when a photographer comes around and says "Hey, why can't I protect my photos like that?" A lot of websites already try, but we have screenshots and noscript to work around it. Or further down the line, what happens when writers start to ask "Video is protected against copying, why doesn't the browser disable copying from my article?" And all of a sudden I can't copy a quote out to email to my mom without either retyping it or taking a photo and running OCR. Easier than exercising fair use on an encrypted video stream, but still an annoying extra step for something that I ought to have the right to do. In short, I don't think video should get to be special, and if you wouldn't accept DRM on every single piece of content then you shouldn't accept it on videos either.
- userbinator 13y ago
  And all of a sudden I can't copy a quote out to email to my mom without either retyping it or taking a photo and running OCR. That is assuming that all your other software hasn't evolved to the point where it recognises "copyrighted content" and stops you from doing that... this is worth reading if you haven't already: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html "if you outlaw freedom, only outlaws will have freedom."
Zigurd 13y ago
DRM means handing over control of a part of a computing device to someone else. In light of recent revelations, how smart is that? So let's go to the opposite extreme and say "Sorry, but there's really no way to enforce copyright against individuals sharing copies." Let's say the industry of selling recorded performances collapses. Are we going to miss it any more than we miss buggy whips?
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Perhaps eventually recordings will be recategorized as advertising for the live performances, food and beverages at the venue, and trademarked souvenir items. Copyright will not be enforced mainly because it limits the growth of the audience. That model, however, does not require an enormous marketing machine with a lot of centralized infrastructure. Artists could use ever-cheaper technology to record and self-promote. The music won't disappear. You'll just have to listen to a lot more mediocre stuff (that has always been there, if you really cared to look) to find something you really like. What you really lose when the record companies vanish is the gold-plating and the bozo filters. That adds some value, but probably not as much as the amount they are demanding that we pay for their vetted and polished recordings.
thrillgore 13y ago
>however to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous. At the heart of the EME/DRM discussions is to make certain browsers and OSes compatible with certain specifications, attributes, and elements. If there's EVER been a risk to the freedom of the Web and the Internet, this is it.
cabalamat 13y ago
> however to say it jeopardizes the freedom of the Internet is disingenuous The purpose of DRM is to stop people copying and using digital content. The purpose of the internet is to enable people to copy and use digital content. DRM's whole point is to limit internet freedom.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  The purpose of DRM is to turn a mathematical impossibility into money. I put a note that I want you to read and keep secret into a box. Then I lock the box. Then I tape the key to the lid of the box, attach a sticky note with specific instructions on how you are allowed to use the key and the note, and give the whole package to you. That's DRM. You open the box with the key, copy the note, put the original back in the box, lock it again, burn the key, and send the box back. You still have the copy of the note. That's reality. You cannot send a message to an untrusted person in a trusted way, no matter how many trusted lock boxes you use. The instant you make it readable to the recipient, it is copyable. Your only options are to either not send secrets to strangers, or to assume that anything you send to a stranger is no longer secret. As they say, three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. The true purpose of DRM is to raise the level of difficulty for copying above the median skill level of the recipients. That way, you can buy legislation to intimidate the smartest guys and limit the supply of copies. It is strictly to reduce the burden of law enforcement to a more manageable list of suspects, from "everyone on the planet" down to "anyone with a JTAG debugging workbench".