3 ms·
True, it was approved by W3C and Tim Berners-Lee a while back (http://www.infoworld.com/article/2612478/html5/berners-lee-and-w3c-approve-html5-video-drm-additi
by abdias 12y ago
True, it was approved by W3C and Tim Berners-Lee a while back (http://www.infoworld.com/article/2612478/html5/berners-lee-and-w3c-approve-html5-video-drm-additions.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2612478/html5/berners-lee-a...), and was criticized - understandably so.
For instance: If someone do research for educational or critical purposes, they have the right to use copyrighted material under "Fair Use" (US, UK and other countries have similar rules).
With DRM this would essentially block this right (if used on the material in question), which of course is not a good thing.
But it's great to see that HTML5 is now the preferred choice on YT.
- ucaetano 12y ago"Right to use" != "right to have it provided to you in an easy-to-copy way".
- deathanatos 12y ago> "Right to use" != "right to have it provided to you in an easy-to-copy way". One of the big problems with DRM is that this ends up being not "right to use" but "right to use in several very narrow ways that someone else deems fit". If your use is innovative or just different — such as using a more capable media player with more features than the one provided to play the media with —, you end up being not able to do it.
- ucaetano 12y agoSo if I write a poem in a rock in the middle of the desert I'm offending your right to have access to it? You can always film the screen and use that as fair use. I'm against DRM, but "You're offending my rights to copy with minimum effort" is not an argument against it. Nobody has to provide anything in an easy-to-copy way, which doesn't mean that you don't have the right to copy it.