Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS Urges W3C To Reject On Principle DRM In HTML5

timothy posted about a year ago | from the one-of-those-has-4-letters-and-a-number dept.

DRM 320

gnujoshua writes "In a new article, GNU Project founder Richard M. Stallman speaks out against the proposal to include hooks for DRM in HTML5. While others have been making similar arguments, RMS strikes home the point that while companies can still push Web DRM themselves, the stance taken by the W3C is still — both practically and politically — vitally important: '[...] the W3C cannot prevent companies from grafting DRM onto HTML. They do this through nonfree plug-ins such as Flash, and with nonfree Javascript code, thus showing that we need control over the Javascript code we run and over the C code we run. However, where the W3C stands is tremendously important for the battle to eliminate DRM. On a practical level, standardizing DRM would make it more convenient, in a very shallow sense. This could influence people who think only of short-term convenience to think of DRM as acceptable, which could in turn encourage more sites to use DRM. On the political level, making room for DRM in the specifications of the World Wide Web would constitute an endorsement in principle of DRM by the W3C. Standardization by the W3C could facilitate DRM that is harder for users to break than DRM implemented in Javascript code. If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.'"

cancel ×

320 comments

Fascinating ... (-1, Troll)

briancox2 (2417470) | about a year ago | (#43612641)

He's against DRM in HTML5? Why didn't I see this coming?

Re:Fascinating ... (-1, Troll)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43612665)

There's no DRM in HTML5, only the M. OTOH, there's RM in RMS, so HTML5 is one better than RMS for avoiding DRM.

Re:Fascinating ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612717)

Oh the conflict, agree with RMS or agree with DRM. It's like voting Republican or Democrat, doomed or doomed.

Re:Fascinating ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612923)

"It's like voting Republican or Democrat, doomed or doomed."

Not being able to figure out the difference is what will doom you.

Re:Fascinating ... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612725)

Like anyone gives a shit what some freetard smelly hippie thinks. The fact of the matter is that DRM is *critical* to protecting the commercial interests of content developers in the modern age. If you freetards don't like that, then start making your OWN popular shows like Mad Men and give it away.

Ron Paul 2016. Take back America from liberals, leftists and freetards.

Re:Fascinating ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612859)

You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.

Re:Fascinating ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613085)

No DRM means no content.

You do realize there was content before DRM was invented, and most content today has no DRM?

Re:Fascinating ... (5, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#43613139)

You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.

That's why all digital music is currently under DRM, as is all Javascript, photographs, recipes, comics, web pages, newspapers etc.

Really... the only content areas still fighting the DRM fight are:
Video
eBooks
software

And software's easing off in favour of a walled garden approach.

No DRM doesn't mean No Content... it means No Content From A Few Rich Content Merchants (not producers). The content will still be produced, just differently. However, with DRM in place, that's no longer an option. Then the content will be produced, but the limit is put on consumption rather than on limiting means of production.

Re:Fascinating ... (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43613293)

You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.

Having done standards-committee work, I'd phrase that differently. The standard is what's out there in the field, that you have to code against. All the committee produces is a document, which you hope enough vendors adopt (and interpret similarly!) to become standard.

Netflix and Amazon video and the rest of the commercial streamers are all contractually bound to use DRM. So it doesn't matter what the W3C says, the significant chunk of internet traffic that is legal video streaming will have DRM. Nothing the committee can possibly do will change that contractual reality. Better to standardize it as best you can then to childishly ignore it.

Re:Fascinating ... (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year ago | (#43612885)

Like anyone gives a shit what some freetard smelly hippie thinks. The fact of the matter is that DRM is *critical* to protecting the commercial interests of content developers in the modern age. If you freetards don't like that, then start making your OWN popular shows like Mad Men and give it away.

Ron Paul 2016. Take back America from liberals, leftists and freetards.

I don't want Mad Men for free, much less for not free.

Ron Paul does have my vote though.

Re:Fascinating ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612977)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-internet-freedom

Ron Paul is against *government* intervention and legislation on the internet. RMS is interested in keeping the internet free, just as Ron Paul is. RMS's argument is that it will lead to proprietary hardware and kernels to view pages and sites that are supposed to be standardized. The beginnings of this can be seen in places like Netflix, where one platform is supported where others are ignored. They may have different economic and social viewpoints, but I guarantee you both at the core Ron Paul and RMS share a common interest. There is common ground between RMS and Ron Paul if you stop and think and avoid the knee jerk reactions. Your post is FUD, but I would expect as much from AC.

Re:Fascinating ... (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43612983)

Wait... you promote Ron Paul while promoting the government regulation of markets and infringements of natural rights by enforcing the copyright monopoly?

Hypocrisy much?

Re:Fascinating ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613437)

Don't worry, Ron Paul would do the same. Hypocrisy is basically a requirement for membership in rightwing nutbag circles.

In early February 2013, Paul filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, a UN organization he has called to be disbanded, against the owners of a website that used his name, www.RonPaul.com.

Re:Fascinating ... (0)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#43613209)

Why do we bother posting reporting on RMS.
His stance on these things are rather clear.
If it isn't Open (his idea of open) then he doesn't like it, and it must be because of pure greed and no other more rational measures.

RMS has already ranted against DRM, there is even anti-DRM measures in his popular GNU license. So why do you think he would be OK with DRM in HTML 5?

His views are ridged, he doesn't care that Netflix will not broadcast over anything that doesn't have DRM, his view is Netflix is pure greed, and we should just watch stuff available threw more open alternatives with little regard to existing copyright law, or just convenience.

Re:Fascinating ... (4, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43613329)

Why do we bother posting reporting on RMS.

While I think he's a smelly hippie with no appreciation of reality, he's still an interesting smelly hippie, because he provides a clearly reasoned argument for his (predictable) position for a given issue.

What is "GNU/Linux?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612653)

I've never heard of a free operating system called "GNU/Linux!"

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612693)

I've never heard of a free operating system called "GNU/Linux!"

"GNU/Linux" is an attempt by the unpopular kid to piggy back onto the fame of the popular kid.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (2, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | about a year ago | (#43612893)

Would linux, the kernel, had any chance to spread out in the world without all the GNU software running on the top of it? I think Linus owes RMS more than RMS owes to Linus and so it goes for linux and GNU.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612927)

So we should prepend "Linux" with every entity that ever contributed? That's a long name..

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613337)

Or should we postpend "GNU" with every entity that ever contributed? That's a long name as well...

GNU/ means less these days because there are actually systems running without the GNU tools (busybox instead of coreutils, etc), but in the earlier days it really was a heavily GNU system. You could count the binaries on the system and see how many came from the FSF and think to yourself "Wow, it really is GNU/Linux."

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43613045)

Time for a history lesson! Early linux users didn't use GNU utilities. They used minix utilities and ported over the BSD utilities. The FSF had to port their utilities and gnu libc to linux to remain relevant. Today, most Linux users are using android... no GNU needed.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (3, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43613203)

Not just that, as more GNU utilities, such as bash, gcc and so on have gone GPL3, they are like an albatross around Linux' neck, since a lot of companies don't want to touch that w/ a bargepole. Just as FBSD and others have gone to LLVM/Clang, don't be surprised as even Linux starts coming out w/ non GPL components in its userland, just like the recent ZFS-on-Linux. Ultimately, one will see a complete non-GPL non-GNU userland come up for Linux in order to make it yet usable. Even things like BTRFS are neither GPL3 nor CDDL - they are GPL2.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (4, Informative)

drakaan (688386) | about a year ago | (#43612853)

The kernel is Linux. Pretty much all of the software is built with GNU tools (e.g. GCC). GNU/Linux is a label that describes the Operating System (not just the kernel).

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43612979)

Not really. The most popular Linux distribution, called Android, uses Java as their userland. Not GNU.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year ago | (#43613067)

I dare say Busybox has a good chance at edging out Android as the most popular Linux distribution.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43613169)

Could very well be the case. One way or another, GNU usage is in minority.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613263)

That's why the term "GNU/Linux" makes sense - to distinguish between Linux systems with the GNU userland and those without.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613317)

99 % don't have the beard to care about GNU anymore

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year ago | (#43613535)

Yeah, Android/Linux is quite popular, what's your point? GNU/Linux is still an OS with a Linux kernel and the most central userland tools being GNU.

Re:What is "GNU/Linux?" (0)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year ago | (#43612901)

I've never heard of a free operating system called "GNU/Linux!"

In Stallman's GNU/Linux, every utility is a reinvention of an existing project, and every package is brutally out of date, if even present. Think Debian...

RMS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612659)

Is all for toejam in HTML5, though.

The Acronym Master strikes again (4, Funny)

turp182 (1020263) | about a year ago | (#43612671)

It's like a secret code, just for us: RMS Urges W3C To Reject On Principle DRM In HTML5

Re:The Acronym Master strikes again (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#43612785)

It's kinda like this:
"Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM's PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM."

However, to be really pedantic, these aren't acronyms, they're initialisms [youtube.com] .

Re:The Acronym Master strikes again (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a year ago | (#43613443)

Damn-it I almost had a bingo. Wait I have the free space.

DRM for transient content ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612675)

There seems to be a false assumption that all DRM is bad. What about transient content. Say a sample, demo or rental that has a limited lifespan.

Such things are quite different from content you "own".

Re:DRM for transient content ... (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#43612745)

Those can be circumvented through the analogue hole, making DRM only an obnoxious hurdle, not a cure. If you want to give people a sample of something, adopt the Apogee model: give them the first part and end it on a really nasty cliffhanger. If there's no data to copy, there's no risk of it being copied.

Understanding DRM (4, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year ago | (#43613201)

Most people think that DRM is about them as if it is supposed to keep movies from appearing on The Pirate Bay. It's ineffective at preventing this as it takes just one leak, any leak of a cracked or "analog hole'd" to be shared to render the whole scheme as ridiculous. And it is, ridiculous, as evidence by the fact that movies and the like are generally more easily obtained via TPB than commercially.

But that's not really the point of DRM. DRM prevents 3rd parties from being able to make a buck off the content being protected. Companies are extremely averse to liability, and even though cracked content is widely available, trying to make a buck off of it is nearly impossible to do without opening you up to legal liability.

DRM isn't really about you, it's about irritating you in order to prevent other companies from improving your experience with accessory services.

Re:DRM for transient content ... (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43613501)

You're talking about DRM-as-copy-protection. Copy-protection has never really worked in the history of computing. (But would anyone pirate an uncontrollable-bitrate stream anyhow, rather than the Bluray?)

But DRM also prevents my ISP from inserting ads into my Netflix stream! Anyone think that companies like Comcast wouldn't do just that?

And DRM also gives the MPAA folks the comforting illusions they need in order to unclench and let me watch the shows I want to watch in some legal fashion.

Re:DRM for transient content ... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43612771)

It's morally less difficult to argue for DRM in this case but technically just as stupid.

Re:DRM for transient content ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612925)

As soon as the publishers get a foot in the door, everything will be a rental with a limited lifespan.

Re:DRM for transient content ... (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#43612959)

As soon as the publishers get a foot in the door, everything will be a rental with a limited lifespan.

I wish I had mod points. The goal of DRM is to force everyone to pay for everything, every time, everywhere.

Re:DRM for transient content ... (5, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year ago | (#43613125)

DRM is bad for an open standard, as DRM cannot be implemented openly. DRM requires a central authority license anyone who wants to implement the standard. Saying it is good or bad is besides the point. It is something that is technologically incompatible with the purpose of HTML.

Re:DRM for transient content ... (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43613235)

DRM is bad for an open standard, as DRM cannot be implemented openly.

It most certainly can be implemented openly. Its not even a little bit hard. The problem is that you can not let the keys out into the open.

This means that Windows and OSX can easily provide resources that allow fully open source DRM to function properly because the OS can store the keys in such a way to make it difficult/impossible for the user to access the bits they need to circumvent the DRM, while at the same time allowing the DRM code itself to be fully open and public.

The problem is not that you can't have open source DRM, its that you dont' get open source DRM because open isn't the issue. Theft is the issue and all the people that are claiming its about 'openness' and 'freedom' are liars and what they are actuallying saying is 'I want to get content for free'.

DRM is obnoxious and a pain in the ass to deal with, but the lack of solutions that meet this pretend world that RMS lives in are because in his pretend world his requirements are entirely different than what he claims to use in the real world.

Re:DRM for transient content ... (5, Insightful)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year ago | (#43613127)

This crap is already being done with proprietary garbage like Flash and Silverlight as RMS mentioned. Let it stay that way, keep it out of web standards. If a company wants DRM bad enough, they'll find a way to shoehorn it into their site no matter what. It will still be easily broken to hell and back and effectively worthless--but at least that worthless crud won't be in the standard like (*gasp*) WEP. Not saying that WEP was bad-intentioned, but it's been found to be broken in ways that any HTML DRM will take only a fraction of the time to be broken. DRM practically exists only to be broken.

All DRM is worthless (3, Informative)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year ago | (#43613609)

Bad is a subjective concept, and DRM can't be it (at least, not for everybody). The following are objective characteristics that do apply to all forms of DRM:

1 - It doesn't disturb pirates in any way
2 - It destroys value for your paying customers
3 - It makes the communication channels proprietary

Meta commentary (3, Funny)

cmburns69 (169686) | about a year ago | (#43612679)

So many acronyms! It's a good thing I'm in the industry, or I'd have no idea what that headline means.

I imagine trying to communicate this to my friends and family: RMS (sounds vaguely British) urges WC3 (the successor to Warcraft II) to reject on principle DRM (Dr. Mario) in HTML5 (they've probably heard that buzzword by now)

A win for Flash and Silverilght (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#43612685)

If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.

Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (3, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#43612761)

OTOH the choice becomes: stay free and HTML5 compliant or (try to) restrict viewers relying on 3rd party technology which won't work well and forever on millions to billions of devices.

DRM on HTML is the best way to make all HTML an ex-standard.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#43613121)

OTOH the choice becomes: stay free and HTML5 compliant or (try to) restrict viewers relying on 3rd party technology which won't work well and forever on millions to billions of devices.

So is Stallman the anti-DRM guy, or the "free" software guy? In this case the two are obviously in conflict, so it's interesting to see which side he chose.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43613227)

We can then switch to XHTML

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43612795)

If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.

Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.

..why oh why do people think that html5 drm would be open? WHY? how the fuck would that even WORK?!?

technically, if the html5 drm went through, it would be just another plugin system. that's also why the whole discussion is pretty useless. the thing to fear from open web viewpoint is that one of the solutions manages to really be multi platform, from all mobile os's to desktop - because imagine a world where 98% of sites were made with flash because flash worked everywhere. imagine a world where every fucking site had right click disabled because "hey it's cool and protects our images!"(IT DOES FUCKING NOT, it's just annoying).

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43612887)

I was on a website only an hour ago where the idiots had blocked right-clicking with a javascript alert message "Our images are copyrighted". It's like none of their programmers knows about right-clicking to "open link in new tab".

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

kh31d4r (2591021) | about a year ago | (#43612955)

It's like you don't know about middle-click.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year ago | (#43613189)

It's like he's on a Mac and stuck with only one mouse button, you insensitive clod.

Wait, are you saying I can press down on that massage wheel on the top of my mouse, and things happen?

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613269)

It's like none of their programmers knows about right-clicking to "open link in new tab".

The programmers do, it's the PHBs, lawyers and bean-counters that don't.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (2)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year ago | (#43612931)

because imagine a world where 98% of sites were made with flash because flash worked everywhere. imagine a world where every fucking site had right click disabled because "hey it's cool and protects our images!"(IT DOES FUCKING NOT, it's just annoying).

Usually I discover this by accident while doing something completely unrelated to saving any image at all... at this point I download the picture out of principle.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43612801)

No he's right and he's doing the right thing.

Consider that there is going to be no DRM in the HTML5 spec itself, just negotiation channels for it. So if you want DRM there will have to be closed-source client-side apps in either case. Therefore, why condone it through support of the negotiation channels? All it could do is ease the spread and development of DRM apps.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | about a year ago | (#43613043)

We already have these things (closed-source client side apps and plug-ins). Nothing we do will take these away. They're not going to "spread" anymore than they are now - because anyone and everyone who needs/wants it does.

All we can hope to do is to make them run correctly - and across all devices. If you don't like DRM - no one is forcing you to use DRM services/apps.

Do you honestly think that you're going to win this battle - and that high-budget content producers are just going to start forking over all their content, without any kind of protection?! "Ideals" aside - what are you trying to accomplish here?! Do you want to perpetuate the mish-mash of methods by which plug-ins are shoehorned into browsers to make the world run??

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43613279)

No I'm trying to eliminate the shoehorning of plugins and use common open codecs like WebM or OGG. I'm also hoping that content producers are just going to start forking over all their content without any kind of protection (like Amazon music store, most of iTunes, and GoG for starters) or go out of business.

Once browsers have the means to replace Flash and Silverlight (which they basically do right now) maybe they'll go away. Look at how badly Flash has been hurt just because one particular brand of smartphone doesn't support it.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | about a year ago | (#43613367)

Look at how badly Flash has been hurt just because one particular brand of smartphone doesn't support it.

But that didn't make anything more "open" - it just moved the proprietary stuff to needing to be done special for iOS devices. This is the exact wrong direction to go in. If there was an HTML5 DRM standard, services could have used that to work for iOS. Instead, they need to create their own proprietary iOS application. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every platform did this?

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613343)

All we can hope to do is to make them run correctly - and across all devices.

Do you honestly think "standard" DRM in HTML is going to make vendors suddenly bother to port their closed source blobs to minority platforms?

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613549)

We already have these things (closed-source client side apps and plug-ins). Nothing we do will take these away. They're not going to "spread" anymore than they are now - because anyone and everyone who needs/wants it does.

If we already have these things then why do they need to expand to include the W3C standard?

All we can hope to do is to make them run correctly - and across all devices. If you don't like DRM - no one is forcing you to use DRM services/apps.

Here, let me fix that for ya

All we can hope to do is to make them run correctly - and across all PROPRIETARY devices

The DRM that we've been 'forced to use' already runs correctly across all devices, if your limited view of 'all devices' is locked in proprietary devices.

Any addition of DRM to W3C will also run correctly across all devices as long as your view of 'all devices' is limited to locked in proprietary devices.

Nobody is winning anything they didn't already have here. But we are loosing more rights to what should be an open standard for 'all devices' not JUST the locked in proprietary devices.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#43613063)

Consider that there is going to be no DRM in the HTML5 spec itself, just negotiation channels for it. So if you want DRM there will have to be closed-source client-side apps in either case. Therefore, why condone it through support of the negotiation channels? All it could do is ease the spread and development of DRM apps.

If you still have a plugin, how does that make it easier to develop DRM'd apps? It seems like you're arguing both sides.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43613295)

Because there will be a common DRM negotiation protocol among all browsers. I want those DRM developers to work hard to make their shitty plugins work, not provide a universal API for them.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43613205)

So if you want DRM there will have to be closed-source client-side apps in either case.

Client apps which can exist outside the generic web browser --- and perhaps replace it. Think of the Netflix tile on the Win 8 Start page. Now imagine a one-stop subscription service for books, magazines, newspapers, music, video and games. all instantly accessible without ever once opening Firefox or Chrome.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43613515)

Sounds like proprietary hell (or Apple's nirvana).

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year ago | (#43612831)

Stallman is right on this. The W3C should not endorse DRM. If that means that it requires Flash for certain things, then certain companies have to be OK with using Flash to display their content to their customers. The W3C shouldn't endorse DRM, that is a battle that deserves to be fought.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43613311)

Yea, we should definitely all miss out on the benefits of DRM (like getting to watch content that I wouldn't get to watch otherwise because they won't sell it without DRM) because of YOUR political ideals. God forbid we should have a feature that YOU don't use.

We should all just use features that YOU think are the right ones ...

If everyone behaved like you say, nothing would ever get done. If you want an example of where everyone objects to anything that doesnt' fit their agenda please watch sessions of US congress until your eyeballs bleed.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (3, Insightful)

Adam Van Ymeren (2844567) | about a year ago | (#43612837)

The DRM in HTML5 will be non-open technology anyways, so what's the difference? Either I use non-open DRM with a standard interface, or I use non-open DRM without a standard interface. As a user they are both shit options, so stop encouraging them. Stallman is a popular target to make fun of, but he's right in this instance.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (2)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43612895)

If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight. Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.

It's a big win for the walled gardens of the app and the app store.

It's a big win for the internet enabled HDTV, the video game console, the Roku set top box. It's a big loser for the "open web" browser when the content people want --- and are willing to pay for --- is only available elsewhere.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#43612939)

DRM is worse than Flash or Silverlight. Those, at least, are free-as-in-beer.

Re:A win for Flash and Silverilght (4, Interesting)

rhysweatherley (193588) | about a year ago | (#43612965)

Oh shut up - taking a pass on DRM is not "pick your battles carefully". Flash and Silverlight are dying on their own because they don't run, or run barely, on the current generation of smart phones, tablets, and ... wait for it ... smart TV's. The content distributors desperately need standardisation because supporting hundreds of device types and dozens of plug-in technologies is a pain in the neck. The problem is they've chosen to outsource the problem by making browser vendors write the proprietary DRM plug-ins for them. Instead of simply adopting the existing specifications for Internet video formats and protocols. Everything they want to do can already be done with AVI/MP4/etc together with HTTP/RTP and a "video" tag in HTML. Everything that is except spy on users and take away people's ability to enjoy the content on a whim. If we resist DRM, they'll either have to adopt open standards or they'll have no business model at all.

GNU/Linux is GNU/Retarded (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612733)

just use linux. it's more free.

Re:GNU/Linux is GNU/Retarded (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43612841)

What can you do with a bare kernel though? The GNU apps are the best part IMO.

Re:GNU/Linux is GNU/Retarded (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43613357)

Ask every android device or busybox router what you can do without GNU.

GNU apps are a bunch of incompatible hacks on old tools from real UNIX. They are fucking obnoxious at best as fucktards don't seem to understand their retarded arguments are mostly done otherways already and entirely incompatible with anything other than gnu tools.

Agreed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612735)

Keep web tech free of DRM, leave DRM to be implemented in plugins.

There is NOTHING wrong with plugin-based webpages and people shouldn't think this way.
Trying to replace every single use-case for plugins is moronic.
And more to the point, it bloats the hell out of the codebases.

Plugins should only be for esoteric things ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612843)

A modern browser should be able to serve most user's common needs without plugins. Don't let your politics impede technology. Plugins should be optional, only for esoteric things.

Re:Plugins should only be for esoteric things ... (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year ago | (#43613247)

Except... the proposed changes do not actually implement the DRM itself. The DRM itself is still going to be done using external plugins. The changes are to implement a standardized interface for these plugins to connect to, and to authenticate that the browser and operating system has not been modified in any manner so as to defeat the DRM.

Re:Plugins should only be for esoteric things ... (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#43613575)

So the proposed changes are essentially "your papers, please" functionality.

I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612743)

RMS is overestimating the amount of control that goes in to the whole DRM system. In any case, regardless of the browser solution, the system has to be secured and protected according to the specific instructions of the DRM maker (e.g. Microsoft). Without that, this EME browser layer is but a useless shell (only encryption) that doesn't do DRM anyways. As DRM will by default always be "security by obscurity", the risk of lowering the level of acceptance is low for any open system. Let's concentrate on more truly open systems instead, and refrain from using solutions that are not truly free. That is the best protection against DRM.
 
And should this not land in W3C now, I can predict it will land there in the future: it will become a de-facto standard supported by major players (Google, MS) and will land in any 'semi-open' solution out there. In fact, it carries another risk: by not accepting this into W3C, it could find itself being taken less seriously in the future by the same major players, leading to more de-facto standards and a return to past times: DOM0, more user-agent inconsistencies and more of these ghosts from the past.

(expert knowledge on this subject, and generally not in favor of any of such restrictions)

I disregard RMS on principle (-1, Offtopic)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43612747)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#On_sex [wikiquote.org]

"On sex
[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html [stallman.org]
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
Link
There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue.
Link
I've read that male dolphins try to have sex with humans, and female apes solicit sex from humans. What is wrong with giving them what they want, if that's what turns you on, or even just to gratify them?
http://stallman.org/articles/extreme.html [stallman.org] "

Re:I disregard RMS on principle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612855)

Textbook ad hominem

Re:I disregard RMS on principle (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43612863)

I should have asked him in the Q&A thread, I don't think he'd answer honestly anyways...but I think those are not his real positions on the topics, but he doesn't want those things to be illegal because laws against child porn, bestiality etc. are used as WMDs against software & Internet freedom.

Re:I disregard RMS on principle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612911)

And you fell for it.

Perhaps you should read up on A Modest Proposal [wikipedia.org] . First, we can use RMS's idea about screwing them, then we can cook them and eat them to prevent overpopulation!

Or maybe we can just tune up our satire detectors, see RMS's rant for what it is (satire with a possibly unhealthy dose of libertarianism), and get back to living a normal life.

Re:I disregard RMS on principle (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43613451)

There is nothing libertarian about RMS - he's an extreme Leftist. Just see his site http://stallman.org/ [stallman.org] if you disbelieve me - it's full of calls to action on every Leftist pet peeve - real AND imagined - that exists out there. There is nothing satirical about his positions either - that's what he actually believes, whether it's his opposition to national IDs, boycott of Coke for using child labor in Latin America (unsubstantiated), support of the Palis against the Israelis, boycott Apple, Amazon, Skype, Ubuntu, or worrying about the death of honeybees last winter. So yeah, I agree w/ the GP - I too ignore him on principle, and anything that I happen to agree w/ him on is just coincidental. I much prefer a more sane approach, such as by ESR, who doesn't hate everything about the US the way RMS does.

Re:I disregard RMS on principle (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#43612919)

I consider children sexual attraction to older people impossible because children are de facto subject to so much crap that they can't express their own personality and wishes anymore;
even if we went all back to desert islands, I think consent is not enough for such acts, consent can be easily tricked out of ADULTS, never mind youngsters. So Stallman has done a shallow analysis on the problem, in other words he's terribly wrong.

Yet I don't understand your post. Do you refuse math if stallman writes that 2+2=4?

Television (5, Insightful)

AdamThor (995520) | about a year ago | (#43612759)

They won't rest until the web is like television. Unidirectional, full of corporate messaging, highly polished emptiness. Think back to the web in the late 1990's. They're already 80% of the way there.

Re:Television (4, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#43612987)

That's an optimistic view. I think they won't rest until the Web is like a telescreen [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Television (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#43613123)

Which is exactly why RMS is correct and it is vitally important for the W3C to reject the notion of DRM as part of the HTML standard.

Re:Television (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613187)

What if that's what people want?

Re:Television (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#43613419)

then they can go watch television and leave the internet the f*** alone.

Re:Television (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613563)

Think back to the web in the late 1990's.

"This page best viewed on Internet Explorer 5.0"

The fact that RMS's opinion actually influences web standards now is a sign that great progress has been made. Congratulations, after a mere 13 years we're already looking back with rose-tinted glasses the way old white men see "the good old days". Now if you'll excuse me, I'll enter a Namecoin address into Firefox to navigate to a Tor site while blocking all ads and scripts, to find a magnet link to a torrent that I'll download over I2P.

Your angsty defeatist attitude is boring. Wake up, grandpa.

I disagree, but I don't like DRM (4, Interesting)

Zerth (26112) | about a year ago | (#43612781)

I'd be quite happy if they'd standardize the DRM in HTML5. That way there would be one common DRM to crack instead of everyone having their own peculiar variant.

No, it'd still be fragmented (4, Informative)

Phil Urich (841393) | about a year ago | (#43612993)

As far as I understand it, DRM in HTML5 would be like the Video tag; no actual specific format specified, just a standardized method for declaring its existence. Just as people can put proprietary, patent-encumbered video formats in an html video tag, so too could they with the DRM standard in HTML5. Folks would still have to install or have proprietary DRM blobs/programs of sorts for any of this to work. Ironically, this puts DRM in webpages potentially even less tied to web technologies, as they'll be passed through to OS-provided methods.

Why not (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612803)

Why not incorporate a viewing cost in the standard? Make it a mandatory attribute in the HEAD tag or something, And couple all browsers to MC and VISA right away. That way we're all set to make some real business happening on the Internet! Because this is what is needed to get business happening, right?

And... (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#43612953)

If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.

... if DRM is implemented in the hardware (BIOS, (U)EFI, TPM - whatever) then this could result in distribution of free operating systems that cannot be played on the hardware you own...

Aren't both of the above the *desired* configurations for closed-source and/or media/content providers - and possibly the government?

[ Now, where is my tin-foil hat? Okay! Who took my frelling hat? ]

Had me until 'nonfree' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613009)

Neckbeards.

Browser vs OS (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | about a year ago | (#43613011)

RMS Said: " If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.'"

...so...

If we standardize it in the browser (HTML5) - we won't have to implement it in the OS.

I don't like DRM either - but I would like my services like Amazon, Hulu, Netflix or whatever to work across all my devices. As much as I would love to have these services simply unprotect all their content - I don't think they'll do it, and I wouldn't if I were them. If they choose to bog-down their services with anti-ad-skipping technologies and nasty things of the such (which Amazon and Netflix do NOT btw) - those service who don't will win out.

For once I agree with Stallman (4, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#43613071)

I usually find his views a bit extreme but in this case I believe that DRM will be the thin edge of the wedge. Suddenly a huge amount of perfectly open content (say government data) will be DRM'd as a reflex. Plus the DRM will come out on Monday and be cracked on Tuesday resulting in just having a new buggy and useless layer to deal with. So now you will invite a whole new audience to the cracking party. So people will all start downloading FirefoxK'd.

Re:For once I agree with Stallman (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43613485)

How is adding a DRM interface to the spec and different than what you already have?

You do realize that DRM'd government docs already exist. They're called PDFs, and they have DRM too.

Videos currently needing DRM are done in Flash.

You see, if you allow generic plugins, then people can make DRM an option. If you don't allow generic plugins, you're cutting yourself out of content.

If you want to be 'Open' then you have to respect that other people will want to do things you don't agree with, just like you want to do things they don't agree with.

When you act so retarded and reject all DRM, you are just as fucking stupid as the studios who reject non-DRM. Except they aren't going that far and being that stupid either. Just you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...