Debunking the HTML5 DRM myths


Kyre sez, "The Free Culture Foundation has posted a thorough response to the most common and misinformed defenses of the W3C's Extended Media Extensions (EME) proposal to inject DRM into HTML5. They join the EFF and FSF in a call to send a strong message to the W3C that DRM in HTML5 undermines the W3C's self-stated mission to make the benefits of the Web 'available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.' The FCF counters the three most common myths by unpacking some quotes which explain that 1.) DRM is not about protecting copyright. That is a straw man. DRM is about limiting the functionality of devices and selling features back in the form of services. 2.) DRM in HTML5 doesn't obsolete proprietary, platform-specific browser plug-ins; it encourages them. 3.) the Web doesn't need big media; big media needs the Web. There is also a new coalition of 27 internet freedom companies and groups standing up to the W3C."

Don’t let the myths fool you: the W3C’s plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal to all Web users.

    


Debunking the HTML5 DRM myths


Kyre sez, "The Free Culture Foundation has posted a thorough response to the most common and misinformed defenses of the W3C's Extended Media Extensions (EME) proposal to inject DRM into HTML5. They join the EFF and FSF in a call to send a strong message to the W3C that DRM in HTML5 undermines the W3C's self-stated mission to make the benefits of the Web 'available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.' The FCF counters the three most common myths by unpacking some quotes which explain that 1.) DRM is not about protecting copyright. That is a straw man. DRM is about limiting the functionality of devices and selling features back in the form of services. 2.) DRM in HTML5 doesn't obsolete proprietary, platform-specific browser plug-ins; it encourages them. 3.) the Web doesn't need big media; big media needs the Web. There is also a new coalition of 27 internet freedom companies and groups standing up to the W3C."

Don’t let the myths fool you: the W3C’s plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal to all Web users.

    


EFF, FSF, Creative Commons and many others ask W3C to reject DRM conspiracy

John from the Free Software Foundation sez,

Hollywood is making yet another attempt to lock down the Web. Undeterred by SOPA's failure, Hollywood is conspiring with tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Netflix to try to influence the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). A proposal currently under consideration at W3C would *build accommodation for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) into HTML itself.* The W3C's job is to keep the Web working for everyone; building DRM into HTML would be a dramatic departure from the NGO's mission.

Today a coalition, organized by the Free Software Foundation and including EFF and Creative Commons, released a joint letter to the W3C condemning the proposal. The coalition is also asking Web users to send a message to W3C by signing a petition>.

The coalition says, "Ratifying EME would be an abdication of responsibility; it would harm interoperability, enshrine nonfree software in W3C standards and perpetuate oppressive business models. It would fly in the face of the principles that the W3C cites as key to its mission and it would cause an array of serious problems for the billions of people who use the Web."

I wrote about this in detail in the Guardian in March.

Keep DRM out of Web standards -- Reject the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal (Thanks, John!)

    


EFF, FSF, Creative Commons and many others ask W3C to reject DRM conspiracy

John from the Free Software Foundation sez,

Hollywood is making yet another attempt to lock down the Web. Undeterred by SOPA's failure, Hollywood is conspiring with tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Netflix to try to influence the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). A proposal currently under consideration at W3C would *build accommodation for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) into HTML itself.* The W3C's job is to keep the Web working for everyone; building DRM into HTML would be a dramatic departure from the NGO's mission.

Today a coalition, organized by the Free Software Foundation and including EFF and Creative Commons, released a joint letter to the W3C condemning the proposal. The coalition is also asking Web users to send a message to W3C by signing a petition>.

The coalition says, "Ratifying EME would be an abdication of responsibility; it would harm interoperability, enshrine nonfree software in W3C standards and perpetuate oppressive business models. It would fly in the face of the principles that the W3C cites as key to its mission and it would cause an array of serious problems for the billions of people who use the Web."

I wrote about this in detail in the Guardian in March.

Keep DRM out of Web standards -- Reject the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal (Thanks, John!)

    


DRM is theft!

Em resposta a algumas referencias positivas ao DRM num post do Jugular…

http://jugular.blogs.sapo.pt/3086374.html?sq=cp=1

Pequeno problema, o DRM, vulgo Digital Restrictions Management, não funciona na prática.

Investem-se milhões de € naquilo que não passa de banha da cobra mágica que cura os males da pirataria (hmm estilo Diácono Remédios).

Então para assustar o cidadão, criam-se leis como a European Union Copyright Directive, transposta na lei 50/2004, que promete duras penas (até 3 anos de cadeia), por contornar o DRM.

Mas se o DRM não funciona tecnologicamente, no mundo digital, se pode ser lido, pode ser copiado – basta descobrir o segredo ofuscado com DRM – então o que e que está a fazer?

A resposta e simples… A maioria das pessoas não quer arriscar cadeia.

Como tal, sujeitam-se a correr os programas que implementam DRM perdendo direitos consagrados por lei (como por exemplo, a cópia privada), ou então não os correm e perdem o acesso às obras.

Eu praticamente deixei de comprar CDs por causa disso, e DVDs então nunca mais.

Perdi o acesso legal aos DVDs que tenho na estante e que os comprei a todos com o seu fantástico DRM mais a lei 50/2004.

Você pode ter ficado contente, mas eu não.

DRM is theft. We are the stakeholders.

In defense of FSF’s Swindle campaign

Some don’t like that FSF is criticizing Amazon for defrauding users of their freedoms with Kindle.

FSF is calling it Swindle, so some guy say it’s whine-like name calling, for instance as in “Andy-Mandy”.

This reveals that this guy, at best, doesn’t know his English. It’s a totally appropriate* accurate wordplay, just check the definition of Swindle:

  • victimize: deprive of by deceit; “He swindled me out of my inheritance”; “She defrauded the customers who trusted her”; “the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change”
  • the act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme; “that book is a fraud”

See?

Well, at least I hope Andy Lester’s criticism is not because he may have something to gain from Amazon

* so I’m not a native English speaker…

TMN “aluga” música que não toca em players

Novo [des]serviço da TMN: DRM enlatado com aspecto de acesso a música. Os clientes podem aceder o catálogo mas não o podem tocar fora de um único computador nem nos seus players MP3.

Para que serve?

Prevejo que os únicos clientes sejam asnos desprovidos de miolos e que a Rita Teixeira caia no olho da rua.

É que a ideia não é nova, a Microsoft Zune Store já lixou os clientes ameaçando-os de ficar sem acesso às músicas desde Agosto deste ano (entretanto mudaram de ideias, provavelmente com medo de processos judiciais em massa), não é um «paradigma novo», portanto.

É que a ideia não é «simples o suficiente para abrir o download de música a utilizadores com menos conhecimentos técnicos» uma vez que «não pode ser reproduzida em leitores de música ou outros dispositivos».

Já estou a imaginar o coro: «não toca no carro/ipod/player MP3 porquê?»

Eis o porquê, a TMN vende banha-da-cobra:

  • o serviço não é uma alternativa à cópia não autorizada uma vez que é menos útil
  • não oferece qualidade de som uma vez que só pode ser tocado no telemóvel ou num computador (provavelmente Windows Vista only, que é para a degradação dos sinais de áudio poder funcionar).
  • e garantia de segurança é um termo tirado directamente do livro 1984 de George Orwell, pois não é a segurança dos clientes que está em jogo, é a garantia que os clientes não vão fazer coisas que eles não querem.

Portugal sempre na crista da onda… das antiguidades.

DRM na TMN? Até já vomitei.