[johns@fsf.org: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM in HTML5]
As touched on last night, the FSF has started their campaign against DRM in HTML5. ----- Forwarded message from John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> ----- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:23:56 -0400 From: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> To: "d.dn" <d.dn@free.fr> Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM in HTML5 Our petition is now live at: <http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5> We will be making a lot more noise about this next week, but help in promoting it (and any feedback) is much appreciated. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>. ----- End forwarded message -----
Signed. I've two minds about this, because on the one hand, DRM really has no place in an open web specification. But on the other hand, if we don't give them (the media companies) a standardised way to do DRM, they will ignore the web platform and come up with their own proprietary DRM systems, such as stand-alone Windows and Mac binaries instead. Could that be even worse? On balance, I say let them build their own binaries away from the web platform. From what I know about the proposed HTML5 DRM spec, it won't be portable anyway, since you'll need a separate piece of proprietary software with license keys in it, and that is fundamentally incompatible with a free software system. Someone correct me if I'm wrong? So from what I understand, this will be just as bad for portability/free software as if the media companies delivered custom binaries anyway. It will just make it more inconvenient to use their videos. Which will maybe help to demonstrate to people that they are making you jump through unnecessary hoops, instead of smoothing those hoops over. Hence, signed. Disclosure: I am an employee of Google. The opinion expressed in this post is my own, and does not necessarily reflect that of my employer. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Adam Bolte <abolte@systemsaviour.com>wrote:
As touched on last night, the FSF has started their campaign against DRM in HTML5.
----- Forwarded message from John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> -----
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:23:56 -0400 From: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> To: "d.dn" <d.dn@free.fr> Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM in HTML5
Our petition is now live at:
<http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5>
We will be making a lot more noise about this next week, but help in promoting it (and any feedback) is much appreciated.
-john
-- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-m...
Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
On 23 March 2013 18:23, Matt Giuca <matt.giuca@gmail.com> wrote:
I've two minds about this, because on the one hand, DRM really has no place in an open web specification. But on the other hand, if we don't give them (the media companies) a standardised way to do DRM, they will ignore the web platform and come up with their own proprietary DRM systems, such as stand-alone Windows and Mac binaries instead. Could that be even worse?
If it is standardised (from what I understand this standard only covers a small part of what is required for DRM) then this could be used by media companies to argue that DRM is ok, because it is "endorsed" by the W3C.
participants (3)
-
Adam Bolte -
Brian May -
Matt Giuca