W3C bullied to push DRM into HTML5. FSF campaign failed.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57583619-93
I signed the petition on the defectivebydesign page, but it seems like the W3C went ahead to add DRM to the HTML5 spec. It wasn't just the big media companies that support it and both Google and Microsoft helped create the technology.
Not to be a dick or anything, but these FSF campaigns remind me of hippies protesting the Vietnam war. People complain and wave banners and try to get the word out, but the people pulling the strings do what they want anyways.
Its not just FSF campaigns that get overthrown by those with power and influence who can therefore arrange to get what they want.
This is just one more step in the end game, which is to turn the Internet into cable TV where every viewpoint you see will be carefully orchestrated. I will unplug then just as I have unplugged from cable.
The big influence here is Google, which has shown their dual nature.
When it creates "open source" technology it is usually for their own personal benefit like Chromium for their proprietary Chrome and WebM to avoid licensing H264 on YouTube. They still include a H264 decoder with Chrome, so they are paying either way.
When it affects their business, they will turn their back on their "open source" ideologies and take the role as yet another manipulative company like Microsoft. They want DRM in HTML5 so they can sell/rent Hollywood films on YouTube. They want users on a Chromebook to be able to watch Netflix easily without a technology they cannot control like Silverlight.
Google is good at not only portraying that image, but also wooing developers to work for them (like the Python language founder) to create proprietary software and personal data collection.
You are SOO preaching to the choir.
Google pretty much told their whole story when they purchased Doubleclick.
A blog post by the W3C CEO:
If you have anything really worthwhile to post, please do! I posted two
comments, but unfortunately one of them was rejected.
This feels a bit hopeless in some respects. By all means we should push on but when you've got such big companies involved it seems like it won't play out in the favour of free software. The problem I see is that if this goes through it will only make it easier for users of all systems to accept it. As we all know it is already very hard to educate the average user of technology of how important it is to avoid non-free software. Usually convenience wins out in that battle.
One thing I find completely ignorant is use of the term "consume" in relation to watching videos, listening to audio or reading text. You're not "consuming" anything but electricity and time that is clearly not the concern here. This is one major indicator of the problems with the thinking behind all of this.
El 11/05/13 01:31, name at domain escribió:
> Usually convenience wins out in that battle.
I agree with you on the other points. But I don't think that most people
value convenience over freedom. They value short-term over long-term
benefits. Freedom is convenient. So that is not the issue. The issue is
that we need to create conscience about the long term convenience
created by freedom.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
The reason I say that users typically choose convenience over freedom is that when I try to make the argument for software freedom most people will shrug their shoulders and say,"I don't care, it does what I want".
El 11/05/13 13:31, name at domain escribió:
> The reason I say that users typically choose convenience over freedom is that when I try to make
the argument for software freedom most people will shrug their shoulders
and say,"I don't care, it does what I want".
When someone shrugs their shoulders it means that they have not
identified freedom with their own needs. Perhaps your explanation
doesn't affect the needs that they have which freedom does address. It
is crucial to find how convenient freedom is for them on those needs.
Different effects of freedom are convenient to different people
depending on their own needs. In the long run, all issues come to
freedom; even the monetary issue.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre
copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
I suppose I need to get better at figuring that out.
El 14/05/13 00:02, name at domain escribió:
> I suppose I need to get better at figuring that out.
>
It is not an easy task. I try to find out the person's motivations and
former setbacks. I look for problems they have had in the past and try
to relate those to freedom as the root cause. It takes a fair amount of
work but it has proved to make the person at least doubt about the
immediate convenience of using non-free software.
Hope this helps. :-)
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
"Not to be a dick or anything, but these FSF campaigns remind me of hippies protesting the Vietnam war. People complain and wave banners and try to get the word out, but the people pulling the strings do what they want anyways."
It would have been sad if there would have been no people waving banners.
Always the same: in case of success, those campaigns are great and adorable; in case of failure, those campaigns were in vain since the very beginning.
El 10/05/13 18:18, name at domain escribió:
> Not to be a dick or anything, but these FSF campaigns remind me of
> hippies protesting the Vietnam war. People complain and wave banners
> and try to get the word out, but the people pulling the strings do
> what they want anyways.
So you think that the Vietnam war would have ended without those hippies
protesting? I think that what you are writing is as valid as writing
that Richard Nixon would have resigned without the Watergate scandal.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
When will they finally learn that DRM won't stop copying (Or piracy, if you prefer)? No matter what they do, as long as the video is played back on your screen, you can get a copy.
The reality is that content publishers that stream video over the internet didn't like the existing HTML5 video spec that linked to a static MP4 or WebM file and had no way of stopping you from directly downloading and giving to your friend and sharing over BitTorrent. Then they would piss off the movie studios as the studios wouldn't have a revenue stream to resell you the same movie over again.
So what was the FSF trying to aim for here? All video be unencrypted or no video at all? I have no technical backing for this, but what if video on the server was encrypted with a public GnuPG key and when it was streamed to your web browser, a private key (for which you bought) unlocked it? Of course if we went down the private key route, it doesn't stop people from distributing that private key with the video on BitTorrent.
Is there comprimise? What if this DRM'd video used a royalty free codec like WebM instead of H264? Would that ease the pain or would you feel the format itself was tainted?
DRMs are wrong. Basing them on free software would not make them right.
"Normal" encryption allows two things: 1) it guarantees the identity of the sender of the message you are receiving; 2) it prevents bad people, listening in the middle, to understand the message. It does not prevent you to do anything with the message that is for you. It is not DRM. In particular, a user can receive a movie from an encrypted channel and then share it, unencrypted. And that is good! People should never be prevented from sharing! That is the basis of any community. Of a civilization at the largest scale.
Free software DRM is an oxymoron. DRMs can only be implemented in proprietary software that, by definition denies freedom 0 (to use the software as you wish). It also necessarily denies the access to the source code (hence, freedoms 1 and 3) because DRMs rely on secrets in the source code that the proprietary software developers and Hollywood have agreed upon against the users. It is a real conspiracy!
There is no comprise to be found. DRMs should not exist. Period.
Video formats and patents strictly have nothing to do with DRMs. Please, do not confuse completely unrelated topics.
Thank you, Magic Banana. I couldn't have said it better myself.
This really stirs up a conflict in me. One of the examples of successful DRM-free content was the Louis CK concert "Live at the Beacon Theatre". It was offered on his site to stream and he still made over a million dollars from fans who wanted to support him. He does have the benefit of an existing fanbase who buys his concert tickets or buys the Louie DVDs unlike most of us.
He did note that people will probably put the concert on BitTorrent and kindly asked to support the artist:
"To those who might wish to "torrent" these shows:
Look, I don't really get the whole "torrent" thing. I don't know enough about it to judge either way. But I'd just like you to consider this: I made these files extremely easy to use against well-informed advice. I was told that it would be easier to torrent the way I made it, but I chose to do it this way anyway, because I want it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want without "corporate" restrictions.
Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I'm just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can't stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the show, and let other people find it in the same way.
Sincerely,
Louis C.K."
On 12/05/13 01:29, t3g wrote:
> I have no technical backing for this, but what if video on the server
> was encrypted with a public GnuPG key and when it was streamed to
> your web browser, a private key (for which you bought) unlocked it?
> Of course if we went down the private key route, it doesn't stop
> people from distributing that private key with the video on
> BitTorrent.
That seems like a reasonable business model. Of course, the process
would have to be made easier for users that aren't tech-savvy.
Technically that wouldn't be DRM, because a user would still have
complete control over his/her computer. DRM is when a distributor
encrypts something that can only be decrypted by a proprietary program.
I doubt the movie industry would have interest in such a scheme. Why?
Because DRM isn't so much about "content protection" (how many
movies/songs are seeded online?) but more about software and hardware
monopolisation (one must seek approval to be able to decrypt restricted
content).
"Not to be a dick or anything, but these FSF campaigns remind me of hippies protesting the Vietnam war. People complain and wave banners and try to get the word out, but the people pulling the strings do what they want anyways."
Lets not be a Mo-by Dick!
Free Software still a clean white whale.
Why?
Netflix has the right to encrypt their movies rentals,Just like any Cable TV companies, Do you expect free lunch with them? Just don't buy their products.
So what If Microsoft supports DRM on HTML 5?
They are just doing to save themselves from oblivion. They are not the only technologies out there. The Windows OSI is dying a cancerous death.
Microsoft technologies is just like Vampires, just don't invite them into your house! In this case your PC.
As long the WWW still free, then let it be. Ill guarantee you, that Browsing the net is not going to be DRM... there will be limitations, specially media streaming, just like trisquel. The battle of the browsers has started a new chapter.
Honestly, W3C decision is going to come back and bite them in their own ass..
About the Hippie comment, maybe, If Mr.Stallman got a decent haircut and a clean shave, Perhaps some one would taken him more seriously...I will support trisquel, but not FSE...unless their hippie leader changes to a more professional look.
>>"About the Hippie comment, maybe, If Mr.Stallman got a decent haircut and a >>clean shave, Perhaps some one would taken him more seriously...I will support >>trisquel, but not FSE...unless their hippie leader changes to a more >>professional look."
What is a professional look? Is it a hoodie like Mark Zuckerburg wears? Is it a suit or a polo shirt and jeans? It's all relative. I think that this is a shallow reason for not supporting the FSF.
>About the Hippie comment, maybe, If Mr.Stallman got a decent haircut and a clean shave, Perhaps some one would taken him more seriously...I will support trisquel, but not FSE...unless their hippie leader changes to a more professional look.
Haha, so silly! So shallow... More hippies, less hipsters!
+1
Rms is has his own style and that's good! His eccentric appearance makes him more convincing.
I am a member!
Apparently, you never heard of the hacker's hacker Richard Greenblatt. According to Steven Levy's book "HACKERS HEROES OF THE COMPUTER REVOLTION", "Greenblatt was a single-minded, unkempt, prolific, and cannonical MIT hacker who went into night phase so often that he zorched his academic career.
Despite these odd personal traits, the hackers held the legendary Greenblatt in awe. He was the way he was because of conscious priorities: he was a hacker, not a socialite, and there was nothing more useful than hacking."
Sounds familiar? Richard Stallman: The last of the true hackers.
Best Regards
That's a great book. Here's more good stuff on hackers by Biella Coleman http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/the-anthropology-of-hackers/63308/
I think almost everyone of us (except rms) makes little concessions on things which aren't good, but acceptable (think of the bios).
DRM is bad, but it has many different levels.
I personally don't refuse to watch or even buy a dvd although it might be encrypted. It takes away some freedom, but I'm able to lent my dvd to my friend, sell it and it's even possible to break the handcuffs. This is the maximum I accept.
Things like steam are worse; I don't want to contribute to a system which doesn't allow you to lent a game to your friend although you have bought it.
DRM on online videos isn't acceptable either. I have bought the film and I want have the freedom to run it whenever I want and to share it with others.
I am a member!
as far as I read the discussion is not over. fsf is not the only ones going against this EFF and creative commons and others are also against it. please see https://www.defectivebydesign.org/stepping-it-up-against-the-hollyweb to see how you can help.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios