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]

Well, allow me to jump in here... Late to the party, but as a long-time 
member of the W3C (and now - unaffiliated - as a member of this 
Community Group) I feel the need to make my voice heard.

On 2013-10-09 15:55, Mark Watson wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:28 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-10-08 16:18 Mark Watson wrote:
>>> Because something is successful does not mean it's reasonable to demand
>>> that it be the only way. Other things can be successful too. All of the
>>> above models are great - I hope they all flourish.
>>
>>> But I also hope we can agree we should defer to the general population to
>>> decide what models they wish to patronize rather than proscribing from on
>>> high which are and are not "acceptable".
>>
>> funny, that's exactly what DRM does
>
> Not at all. DRM-protected services are offered as products to the
> general population and they can decide whether to accept them or not.
> This is what I mean. What you are asking is for a committee of
> unelected engineers to decide what is acceptable or not for the web.
>

It's not just "unelected engineers" who decide what's acceptable for the 
web - and that has always been true at the W3C. Those who represent an 
employer are not necessarily engineers, and "invited experts" (the way I 
originally came in) are not necessarily engineers, either.

And that's a good thing, because the web is a medium for open exchange 
of ideas and information by everyone - and 'everyone' should not leave 
such decisions to only engineers (elected or not).

I jumped in here because I am deeply disturbed that the W3C has decided 
that HTML should support DRM, and deeply saddened by the fact that TBL 
(who *created* this thing called 'WWW' that was designed for open 
exchange of information and ideas) has himself endorsed it.

A standard (HTML) that is designed for open exchange of information 
fundamentally has no place for mechanisms like DRM that hinder that very 
aim.

If companies want to offer DRM-protected services they can go ahead - 
they are already doing so, after all. They do not need the support of 
what was designed for the very opposite.


>>
>>> In fact it's imperative that we do encourage as many
>>> different models as possible, because it is only through diversity and
>>> experimentation that we discover what works .
>>
>> DRM attempts to prevent that: preventing non-sanctioned use (i.e.
>> experimentation) is the explicit goal of DRM
>
> The different models listed were all
> different ways that the creators of content could offer it to the
> public.  Having technical solutions for DRM doesn't force any product
> offer to use them. All the other models can still be used by those to
> choose to. It is only you who is arguing that certain models should
> not be supported by the technology, not even available to content
> creators as an option on the web.

"Only you"? Sorry, Mark, but you are sadly mistaken. There are countless 
people who are arguing that a standard that was designed for open 
exchange of information should not be crippled by even the option to 
hinder that very aim. Remember there was a petition when the W3C first 
floated the idea of DRM support in HTML? I signed that petition.

I am one of them.

I work as an independent photographer now (one who *doesn't* want their 
work locked away with crippling DRM), but I am still very engaged with 
open standards, usability and accessibility (DRM can only be bad for 
that), and open culture. In fact, culture forms the basis of my main theme.

The EFF has it wrong when they say:
"Static image creators such as photographers are eager for the W3C to 
help lock down embedded images." 
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards] I'm sure 
there are some...

But there are other photographers, other video makers, other visual 
artists, other musicians, who are eager to see HTML remain DRM-free. 
There are other ways to make money than by crippling culture. There are 
musicians who share their work under Creative Commons licences - and 
video makers, and artists, and photographers. There are photographers 
who are members of the Creative Commons.

I am one of them.

-- 
Marjolein Katsma Photography
http://www.artflakes.com/en/shop/marjoleink
http://marjoleink.photoshelter.com/
http://marjoleink.redbubble.com/

Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 09:44:39 UTC