Re: Cory Doctorow: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards, says it's OK for your browser to say "I can't let you do that, Dave" [via Restricted Media Community Group]

(sorry, my original reply never appeared cause I used a different email 
address)

On 04.10.2013 23:21, David Singer wrote:
> I think you need to be much more specific than "ultimate control", which is a bit sweeping.  The content owners (not all of whom live in Hollywood or even the USA) want to "increase friction" for copying. When content was, for example, on LPs, it was quite hard for people to make copies.  Now, it's very easy -- too easy, in their minds. They want (not unreasonably) people who enjoy the content that they created for sale, to pay for it.

I'm paying for it, but I don't want to be locked into one device or
platform. I understand this is not in the interest of Apple, Google, or
Microsoft, but it's in the interest of users.

> There is, alas, plenty of fairly unreadable Javascript out there.

JavaScript is being obfuscated, but it's not compiled - yet. I'm afraid
DRM would open the door for requests to do so.

>> Thus I see these key requirements:
>> - DRM must never interfere with freedom of speech. Oppressive governments shouldn't be able to use DRM for censorship.
>
> I don't see the connection.  Censorship is about preventing publication, not about restricting dissemination.

Imagine: if there's a tool for preventing content to be displayed, as an
oppressive regime you'd certainly like to misuse it. Look at the states
who have blacklisted websites. First there's only child porn on the
lists, but soon you'll find websites of the opposition. And I'm speaking
of Northern European states, not Arabic.

>> - Open Source is also imperative so that *anybody* can create compatible players, not just a few big companies who own patented software.
>
> If I can create a player, I can create a copier.  How do you avoid that?

With a business model that respects paying customers instead of treating
them like criminals? But seriously, how do you avoid manufacturers
implementing backdoors and spyware for surveillance on entire
populations without working in the open? How do you assure that players
like VLC continue to work? How do you avoid stifling innovation building
upon these techniques?

>> - DRM in HTML5 must respect the medium. A browser is moveable, not a static DVD player.
>
> I don't follow.

If I purchase content, I expect to be able to view it anywhere, not just
when I'm in my home country.

>> - DRM must never interfere with "view source".
>
> Good luck with viewing the source of video or audio.

You know that I mean viewing the source of HTML pages, CSS, or JavaScript.

>> - DRM must comply with international treaties and international or national copyright laws. They are currently negotiated (e.g. TTIP) or under development, so a definition in a standard is in my opinion premature.
>
> International copyright is for the most part pretty settled.

So why have there been a trillion of new
trade-negotiations-with-acronyms (TNWA) in the past few years?
Publishers continue to push the limits, content becomes unavailable for
generations because it's out of print, just that Walt Disney's heirs or
the remaining Beatles become richer.

>> - Feel free to add more.
>
> I am astonished you don't mention linkability, fair use, the right to control your own artistic creations, the right to be remunerated for your creative work.

The latter would be part of your business model, and when you sold me a
copy of, say, "1984", it's mine. I object anybody being able to delete
it from my e-book folders.

Regards,
   Martin

Received on Saturday, 5 October 2013 12:33:40 UTC