Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C

from the that's-not-going-to-end-well dept

The W3C has been at the forefront of open standards and an open internet for many years, obviously. So it's somewhat distressing to see it announced this morning that the MPAA has now joined the group. After all, it was not that long ago that the MPAA flat out tried to break the open internet by imposing rules, via SOPA, that would have effectively harmed security protocols and basic DNS concepts. All because it refuses to update its business model at the pace of technology. The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet. The W3C states that its "principles" are "web for all, web for everything" and that its vision is "web of consumers and authors, data and services, trust." The MPAA has basically been opposed to... well.... all of that. It has tried to take a consumer web of authors and turn it into a broadcast medium for major producers. It's tried to destroy trust, and put in place locks and keys.

In short, the MPAA has no place at all in the W3C. If there had been any indication that this was a shift in the MPAA's thinking, that actually would be interesting. If the MPAA had shown even the slightest indication that it was finally willing to embrace real internet principles and standards, and move Hollywood into the 21st century, that would be a good thing, and they should participate. But that's not what this is about, at all.

Instead, I fear that this is because of the stupid fight, which the W3C supports, to put DRM in HTML5. Tim Berners-Lee, who created the web and heads the W3C, has (for reasons that still don't make any sense) supported this dangerous proposal. Despite detailed explanations for why this is a bad idea, he has continued to defend the idea, which appears to go against nearly everything he's said in the past. Having the MPAA join the W3C is not encouraging at all.

Berners-Lee's support of DRM in HTML5 seems to be based on the short-sighted (and simply wrong) idea that the web needs the legacy entertainment industry more than the legacy entertainment industry needs the web. Building truly open standards that the world adopts will get the MPAA and others to come along eventually, because they'll realize they need to go where the people are, even if it isn't crippled with restrictions and locks. Bringing the MPAA into the process only continues to perpetuate this idea that we should be building a broadcast platform for the entertainment industry to push a message at consumers, rather than building a platform for creators of all kinds to communicate and share.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:08pm

    I think the W3C just jumped the shark

    I think the W3C just jumped the shark; I wonder how difficult it would be to fork the relevant developers to a different organization (which would likely initially adopt the untainted prior versions of the standards as historical reference)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:12pm

    The W3C has been bought out

    Tim Berners-Lee wouldn't be making such statements without a bit of "encouragement" from the MAFIAA, would he?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:14pm

    How long will it be before the MPAA will do every thing possible to ensure that they take over the W3C and then to regulate the internet in a restrictive way to how they see fit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anon2, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 6:40am

      Re:

      well the good thing is, the w3c can't control it. they only make suggestions that developers and companies can follow if they want. if this happens, i hope there will be a split html5 standard and that google and firefox wont adopt it.

      w3c have a great role, but they cant force anyone, at the end of the day, thats up to the developers

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:18pm

    I wonder if Tim's been blackmailed into going along with all this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 10:01pm

      Re: blackmailed into going along with this

      That is utter nonsense, it's not like there's some omniscient organization out there that can read everyone's emails.. put away your tinfoil hat!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        G Thompson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:37pm

        Re: Re: blackmailed into going along with this

        Absolutely... tinfoil hats have been proven to be full of NSA exploits....

        Now papermache with barbed wire inserts to act as a faraday cage on the other hand...

        ;)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2014 @ 7:34pm

        Re: Re: blackmailed into going along with this

        NSA?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    krolork (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:20pm

    Looks like I'll be leaving the web once it gets as bad as the movie industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Geno0wl (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:21pm

    You can kill a man, but you can never kill his voice or ideals.
    My cynicism says their plan is to rot those ideals from the inside.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jollygreengiant (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:26pm

    I have to agree. The W3C can decree as many standards as it likes, but if general opinion among developers is that it no longer deserves that role, it's standards won't get supported. Who fancies starting the New Open Markup Standards commitee? I think NOMS has a long way to go!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    bob, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:34pm

    Congrats to the W3C

    They realized that the Internet is not just about making Google and Facebook rich, it's about helping everyone who creates content earn something for their contribution. They realized that the only way to do this is to work with the artists and the artists' representatives.

    This is wonderful news for the world because the world flourishes when everyone is rewarded for their work, not just the stockholders of Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      You're hilarious.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:41pm

        Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

        Because he's 100% correct?

        Stop being a buffoon.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          So do they pay you by the comment or just a flat fee?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          No, more because he's an overly paranoid and completely transparent shill.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            bob, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

            Actually not. But those who want to expand "fair use" to the point of breaking are often paid by Google. Are you getting your check? Or are you just one of their dupes, endlessly arguing to screw over the artists so the search engines can get richer?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

              expand "fair use"

              Oh you've got to be fucking kidding me...EXPANDING it? Please enlighten everyone as to how "fair use" has been expanded.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              DOlz (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

              Or are you just one of their dupes, endlessly arguing to screw over the artists so the s̶e̶a̶r̶c̶h̶ ̶e̶n̶g̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ movie studios and record companies can get richer?

              There corrected for you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      And how much did you get paid to say that?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        bob, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:35pm

        Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

        Nothing. But I hope to earn a fair return from selling digital copies to my creations-- a fair return that's often throttled by the piracy endorsed by the losers around here. So anything that hurts piracy helps us all by letting society reward those who do the work.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          And copyright does nothing at all in the modern era to help you earn a living.
          Case in point. I like anime. I watch it all the time. For years I've known and have been able to download it for free whenever I want. I can still do it. However, I now pay for a Crunchyroll subscription. I pay for Steam games. The fact that these titles are copyrighted has absolutely no bearing at all in my decision to remunerate the developers/publishers.
          Even though the official versions of the content I want is often DRM'd (Steam is DRM, but one of the mildest that I will tolerate), I don't factor that into my decision to pay. I know that I can get a non-DRM'd version anytime I need to.

          So...again. Tell me, how does DRM help you earn a fair return. All you've done is assert that it does without offering evidence that proves it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          JMT (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          "So anything that hurts piracy helps us all by letting society reward those who do the work."

          Your theory seems to leap right from "stop piracy" to "people give me money", missing out the critical step in the middle where the customer decides whether the price you're asking matches how much they value your work. It doesn't matter what you think is a fair return, you're not the one paying.

          Note also that there's currently nothing stopping society rewarding those who do the work.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 4:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You keep going on and on about these supposed "creations" - yet no one has ever seen hide or hair of them.

          And for good measure, your fanciful fictions posted on Techdirt don't count.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          I would say that the quality of your work throttles your returns more than anything else.

          If you cannot make a profit with 5 BILLION people connected then that says a lot about your work.

          Here is a hint.
          Try producing something of quality that people are willing to pay for.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Pragmatic, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 6:46am

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          Ah, so there it is; you're a failed content creator who can't make it in the real world so you're clinging to the hem of the emperor's new clothes by looking to the internet to provide you with an income via selling copies.

          Remember mix tapes? Look, buddy, if you only sold it in physical format and there was no internet, guess what? People would still copy and share it if they liked it enough. You're doin' it wrong, and why? You're blinded by greed and delusions of grandeur.

          So what's the product? Music? Porn? Books?

          Mike has kindly provided us with a range of options for leveraging the internet's propensity for sharing right here so you don't have to see it as a threat.

          http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=business+models

          The truth is, unless you've got a surefire way of gaining attention for a product people want, your "fair return" will be spent on marketing and chasing alleged infringers. You have read and commented on stories that tell us what happens when people don't get the internet. Get the $$$ out of your eyes and really look at the situation. The world - and the internet - don't work the way you want them to and since you're a little guy the alleged protections don't apply to you, which means that the best you can hope for is to ride on the coattails of the industry bigwigs.

          Here's a bit of fun for you:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion#The_Lion_King_controversy

          Whatever will you do if this happens? Resort to copyright laws for compensation? Good luck with that.

          Better to engage with your fans and leverage support while promoting genuine scarcities such as public appearances than try to pretend that the only distribution routes of your product are the ones you approve. That's assuming you can even shift one copy.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        ibrahim dauda, Feb 27th, 2014 @ 3:08am

        Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

        hello i am having a problem with my laptop sauvegardes please help me fix it thank you

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:37pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      Right...because what could go wrong with the MPAA lobbying their bullshit piracy studies with their unique brand of "math" into Internet standards?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:56pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      Last I heard Hollywood had another record year at the box office.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        LAB (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

        I never understood this argument. The MPAA is pissed about losing sales of DVDs and digital downloads. The sale of DVDs has nothing to do with people going to the movies.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 5:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          Maybe not, but the fact that they continue to make record profits, despite claiming, constantly, that piracy is destroying their business does show that the 'threat' isn't even close to as bad as they make it out to be.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          Considering that the MPAA tried to get the precursor to the DVD made illegal, you know the VHS and how it is the Boston strangler and was going to kill the movie industry.

          Why do they even count those sales. If they had their way, they would not even exist in the first place.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          And yet they still managed to pay Charlie Sheen 500 grand per episode. Quite impressive for a dying business, don't you think?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:58pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      the Internet is not just about making Google and Facebook rich

      Thank goodness that it doesn't just make Google and Facebook rich. Pretty much everyone who has any kind of web presence benefits from it to some degree.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        bob, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:37pm

        Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

        Oh sure. All of the editors at Wikipedia don't even get paid beer money. But the leaders do and Google gets plenty of free content for its ad machine. Why bother editing a magazine and paying for health insurance for salaried writers when you can pay Jimmy Wales a few million and he'll keep is foolish drones creating more content for your ad machine?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          "Oh sure. All of the editors at Wikipedia don't even get paid beer money."

          ...That's the point of Wikipedia, it's whole mission goal, that anyone can edit the articles and not just professionals who do so for a living.
          Talk about completely missing the point.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

            He's just upset that Wiikipedia and others that freely release content under CC and other similar licenses create more freely accessible content that competes with the content that publishers and middlemen 'own'. He doesn't care any about the creators, if he did instead of protesting Google for helping Wikipedia authors accomplishing their goal of making information more easily accessible he would be putting his efforts into criticizing the MPAA and publishers and others for their Hollywood accounting and for doing everything they can to scam content creators. No, instead he supports those that hurt content creators the most (the middlemen) under the pretext that he's so concerned for content creators.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          If Wikipedia is not complaining why is it any of your concern?

          and your comment shows that content will be created without IP laws. Abolish IP and content will continue to be created. As for the content that is created as a result of IP, that content is being subsidized by me (and others) at the expense of my rights (not to mention the tax dollars required to fund these expensive laws). I can do without it being created.

          (to be clear, governments can't give rights, rights exist outside of government. yes governments can protect rights and the constitution can be a document stipulating rights that government can not remove, like the right to free speech, but IP is not a right because IP law can not exist outside of government. IP law is a subsidy that taxpayers pay for and those that sacrifice their rights to comply pay for).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

            (to continue)

            If you think that there is a piece of content that you want and it exists as a result of copy'right' laws and wouldn't otherwise exist then you should fund it yourself. You shouldn't make me subsidize your content in the form of sacrificing my right to freely copy and redistribute what I want as I please (and in the form of the tax dollars that are spent enforcing these laws and in the form of the cost to service providers, like Youtube, to comply with these laws and in the form of the cost to end users of these services who may either be denied the existence of certain services, be denied certain features within some of these services, have to deal with the hassle of having their content incorrectly removed and figuring out how to restore it, have to deal with more ads, etc...). This is not acceptable. Others should not be forced to subsidize content you want. Whatever content exists as a result of IP law can cease to exist, I don't care, I want my right to freely copy and I don't want to subsidize your content for you.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              LAB (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

              "Whatever content exists as a result of IP law can cease to exist, I don't care."

              That is just it. You don't care because it is not your profession. You are not a content creator. For some reason anyone who makes a living from the benefit of IP you don't care about. You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP, not to mention the computer you wrote this comment with.

              "I want my right to freely copy."

              I am tired of this statement. I have made copies of my CDs and nobody came to my house. Nor has anyone come to your house.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 4:38pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP, not to mention the computer you wrote this comment with.

                You realize that a good number of locations in developed countries like England were built from the profits made via the slave trade in the 18th century. So slavery is justified?

                I have made copies of my CDs and nobody came to my house. Nor has anyone come to your house.

                This is often used as justification for harsh punishments - since few people are ever caught those unlucky enough to get fingered have a pound of flesh demanded from them. The RIAA has been caught declaring multiple times in the past that they considered backing up your CDs as illegal.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  LAB (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 5:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "You realize that a good number of locations in developed countries like England were built from the profits made via the slave trade in the 18th century. So slavery is justified?"

                  Stop.......please. Equating IP and slavery is just offensive.

                  "This is often used as justification for harsh punishments - since few people are ever caught those unlucky enough to get fingered have a pound of flesh demanded from them. The RIAA has been caught declaring multiple times in the past that they considered backing up your CDs as illegal."


                  The harsh punishments are because the statutory damages were designed for penalizing businesses and are being applied to individuals and this is wrong.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 6:17pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Equating IP and slavery is just offensive.

                    As is equating duplication of files with literally taking away money from the hands of artists. Anyone can see the RIAA and MPAA walk away each year with more profits than ever. Where are they getting paid if artists are devastated by piracy?

                    The harsh punishments are because the statutory damages were designed for penalizing businesses and are being applied to individuals and this is wrong.

                    Are you going to argue this in court if you're ever unlucky enough to get caught?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      LAB (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 6:52pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      As is equating duplication of files with literally taking away money from the hands of artists. Anyone can see the RIAA and MPAA walk away each year with more profits than ever. Where are they getting paid if artists are devastated by piracy?


                      Is it? An artist makes a percentage of album sales. Sales are down since P2P and piracy. Artist makes less. This seems straight forward.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:26pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Right, and I suppose all the content being made and money being made by the RIAA came out of nowhere. Piracy must have destroyed those, right?

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:36pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        what, you mean during that Global Financial crisis. you know, where thousands of people lost their jobs.

                        So you still expect to make millions of sales while people are starving and losing their homes?

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        That One Guy (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:38pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        It's not quite so simple. Physical music sales, like CD's and the like, are indeed going down, but that's because they're being replaced by digital sales.

                        Now, this shift may indeed end up costing the artists money, but that's entirely due to the labels, and their habit of classing a digital 'sale' as either a 'license' or a 'sale', depending on who they're talking to and what they're trying to achieve.

                        Some numbers:

                        Digital(Record industry)
                        US Recording Industry Revenues from Online: $1.1 billion (2006), $1.7 billion (2007), $2.2 billion (2008), $2.5 billion (2009), $2.8 billion (2010), $3.0 billion (2011)

                        Physical(Record industry)
                        US Recording Industry Revenues from Physical: $9.7 billion (2006), $9.1 billion (2007), $8.0 billion (2008), $7.1 billion (2009), $6.4 billion (2010), $5.7 billion (2011)

                        Digital(Overall)
                        US Digital Music Revenues : $1.9 billion (2006), $2.8 billion (2007), $3.7 billion (2008), $4.5 billion (2009), $5.2 billion (2010), $5.7 billion (2011)

                        Another stat I ran across that provides more proof of the 'piracy is mostly a service issue' idea:

                        US Online households use the following services to download music from the Internet: 70% Use Illegal P2P Site, 37% Use Online Legal Service(2003), 58% Use Illegal P2P Site, 32% Use Online Legal Service(2004), 38.3% Use Illegal P2P Site, 57.4% Use Online Legal Service(2005)

                        How's that saying go, 'If you build it, they will come'?

                        Source:
                        http://www.grabstats.com/statcategorymain.aspx?StatCatID=9

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                That One Guy (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 5:10pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                For some reason anyone who makes a living from the benefit of IP you don't care about.

                Maybe it's because you're so focused on 'IP law' and how it can 'protect' you that you don't care about what it means for other people. How it can can have significant negative impacts on others.

                Want to create a lyrics site for your favorite band, because the band/label itself refuses to do so? Too bad.

                Find a new artist and, in an attempt to share them with your friends and family you send them a track, or the songs so they can listen to, and possibly become fans as well? Enjoy the million dollar plus lawsuit.

                Write a song that sounds a little too much like another one, either accidentally or perhaps because your song is meant as an homage to the other song/artist? Enjoy the lawsuit.

                Steal(literally) a CD from a store? Slap on the wrist, minor fine. Download that same CD online? You're treated worse than if you'd stolen someone's car, with fines in the 5, 6, or 7 figure amount.

                Make a review video for a game, movie, or even book, spending dozens of hours and work putting it together, before putting it on a site like YT? Enjoy having all of the profits from the video taken from you, due to a 5 second clip of music or video you included in it, by a system put in place in an attempt to appease the parasites.

                Have a business and want to play the radio for your customers to listen to while they wait? It's counted as a 'public performance', and suddenly you'll find yourself threatened with fines and fees for it.

                Have a business and want to have bands providing live entertainment for your customers, or perhaps have that as your business? Enjoy paying out the nose to 'collection agencies' because one of the bands might play a song that they own.

                When the current IP law you say you depend on to make your living tramples all over people and their rights, making illegal human nature of creativity and sharing, don't be surprised when you don't exactly get a friendly reception defending it.

                Now, to clarify, just because people are against IP law as it stands today, does not necessarily mean that they are against artists being able to make money off of their work, most people have no problem with an artist making a profit on their creations, what they're objecting to is how insane the laws have gotten, and the damage they cause. When downloading a CD's worth of songs is considered by the law to be a crime heinous enough to bankrupt a person for the rest of their life, something is seriously wrong.

                You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP

                This again... There's a difference between 'made because of IP law' and 'made while IP law exists'. Saying that because IP laws exists, and someone made something, that makes the creation 'due to' IP law would make just as much sense if you swapped out 'hair' with 'IP laws'.

                Very little I'd imagine is made because of laws in place. A writer with a story on their mind would not be likely to refuse to write if copyright law weren't around, same with an artist and their paintings, or a musician and their songs.

                People create, they always have, they always will. Claiming that IP law is responsible for people creating requires ignoring the vast majority of human history when those laws didn't exist, and yet creation still took place.

                ...not to mention the computer you wrote this comment with.

                Which likely would not exist had today's IP laws been in place when it was originally being developed. Patent and copyright trolls are nasty enough today, crushing smaller businesses with massive 'license fees' and court costs, imagine how bad the damage they could have done when the technology behind computing was just getting going?

                I am tired of this statement. I have made copies of my CDs and nobody came to my house. Nor has anyone come to your house.

                Yet the fact remains, due to the bought and paid for laws, you almost certainly broke the law doing so, and if someone cared to, they could drag you to court and hit you with a massive fine for doing so.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  LAB (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 6:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                  Want to create a lyrics site for your favorite band, because the band/label itself refuses to do so? Too bad.

                  Yes the band doesn't want their lyrics reproduced but you have an inherent right to do so, yes? You have a right to make a website and how dare they? The indignation, that someone who made or controls the work does what they want with it.


                  "Find a new artist and, in an attempt to share them with your friends and family you send them a track, or the songs so they can listen to, and possibly become fans as well? Enjoy the million dollar plus lawsuit."

                  If you sent a CD of you favorite band to your friends and family you would get sued? Not if you bought it. When I turn my friends and family on to new music I generally tell them the name of the group and they go look it up on Youtube. I am not sure when you were sued for millions but do tell.


                  "Write a song that sounds a little too much like another one, either accidentally or perhaps because your song is meant as an homage to the other song/artist? Enjoy the lawsuit."

                  Incredible generalization, but for the sake of argument I'll run with it. The only reason you would get sued is if there is money involved. Did you rip off the song? Was it really a accident? Are you selling it? If you heard it on the radio or you heard it before( if you had access) yup, prob gonna get sued. If it is as a homage ( a cover) the original artist shouldn't get some money when you do? Why not? Didn't they write the song? Isn't giving them some money the ultimate in homage?

                  "Make a review video for a game, movie, or even book, spending dozens of hours and work putting it together, before putting it on a site like YT?"

                  I would argue fair use, but you know what? Youtube is a commercial entity and as such they do what they want. Yes, their content ID needs to be changed .....but want to keep the money from your review, don't use any video you don't own or music that is not yours or....... license it.....I know that is an odd thought.

                  "Have a business and want to play the radio for your customers to listen to while they wait?"

                  If it is the commercial radio or Tv, you got no worries mate. Hmm, I guess you could pay for a service right? You see you are getting a commercial benefit from playing the music(customers staying and buying cause they like the music) but you don't want to pay for it, Why not?

                  "making illegal human nature of creativity and sharing, ."

                  This is always my favorite. It diminishes the works and rights of the creator because this is what we humans do, we share right? There is a fundamental difference between back in the olden days and now, capitalism.


                  "There's a difference between 'made because of IP law' and 'made while IP law exists'. Saying that because IP laws exists, and someone made something, that makes the creation 'due to' IP law would make just as much sense if you swapped out 'hair' with 'IP laws'."


                  Of course......I often feel I must voice my opinion because there is often only one flavor of Kool aid available on this site.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    That One Guy (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:15pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                    Yes the band doesn't want their lyrics reproduced but you have an inherent right to do so, yes? You have a right to make a website and how dare they? The indignation, that someone who made or controls the work does what they want with it.

                    They're called 'fans', you know, people who like a band/artist/writer, and so want to share what they like with other people? This can include writing down the lyrics and posting them so people have a clue what's being said.

                    And pray tell, how exactly does a lyric site harm a band? The only people who would be interested in a song's lyrics are either a) fans of the song, who want to know what exactly is being sung, or b) someone who heard the song, didn't know what it was called or who made it, and wanted to find out.

                    The first is likely a person who's already bought the music, the second is someone who is likely to buy it, as if they're that interested in finding the song, give them a chance to buy and they'll probably take it.

                    If you sent a CD of you favorite band to your friends and family you would get sued? Not if you bought it. When I turn my friends and family on to new music I generally tell them the name of the group and they go look it up on Youtube. I am not sure when you were sued for millions but do tell.

                    I was talking about digital files, not CD's(who buys those anymore?), and with the huge number of lawsuits over people sharing or downloading music, such an act would certainly put you in the crosshairs of some lawyer were it to be made public.

                    Also, as far as the youtube angle there, how many of the songs you direct them to are put up by the band itself, vs fans who want to share the music?

                    Incredible generalization-

                    Not as much as you might think. Here's a couple of articles talking about lawsuits and legal issues involving incredibly brief snippets of music/video:

                    3-10 seconds:
                    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120427/18013118692/sad-state-copyright-guy-using-3-to-10- second-clips-music-viral-videos-accused-infringement.shtml

                    6 seconds:
                    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130403/13353622562/heres-vine-video-prince-abused-dmca-to -takedown.shtml

                    10 seconds:
                    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111011/17322016310/insanity-judge-rules-that-copyright-ho lder-10-second-sample-deserves-84-royalties.shtml

                    Ringtones as a 'public performance':
                    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090620/1836345299.shtml

                    I would argue fair use, but you know what? Youtube is a commercial entity and as such they do what they want. Yes, their content ID needs to be changed .....but want to keep the money from your review, don't use any video you don't own or music that is not yours or....... license it.....I know that is an odd thought.

                    So first you argue for fair use, then you argue against it by claiming 'just license it'. 'Fair use' does not equal 'Paid use', no matter how much some industry people may wish it did. The entire point of fair use is that you don't have to pay, ask permission, or otherwise 'license' a work to use it in a fair use manner.

                    If it is the commercial radio or Tv, you got no worries mate.

                    You'd think so, but...

                    Small business with the radio on in the background:
                    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0128383597.shtml

                    Woman playing the radio to her horses:
                    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml

                    Never underestimate the greed of these people, if there's even the possibility that they could squeeze another cent out of someone, they will take it, rationality or sanity be damned.

                    Hmm, I guess you could pay for a service right? You see you are getting a commercial benefit from playing the music(customers staying and buying cause they like the music) but you don't want to pay for it, Why not?

                    First of all, who goes to, and buys stuff from, a store just because they like what's playing on the radio? Saying that having some background music is providing a 'commercial benefit' seems to be really stretching things.

                    Also, if you're going to go that route, that the music playing in the background brings people in, and therefor the store owes someone money, then the reverse would be true too, it's possible that there would be people who would avoid the store(personally I wouldn't spend much time in a store if they were playing something like rap or country) because of the music, so the other groups should pay the store for potential 'lost customers'.

                    As for why they shouldn't have to pay for it, radio is free to listen to, why should suddenly having multiple people listen to it require the exchange of money(an additional exchange I should say, the radio station likely already paid to play the music)?

                    This is always my favorite. It diminishes the works and rights of the creator because this is what we humans do, we share right?

                    No actually, what it does is brings the 'creators' back down with the rest of the people. Rather than being treated all special because they 'create stuff', it's a realization that everyone creates, everyone takes in and is inspired by the world and culture around them, and it shapes the creation of more culture, more creations.

                    It's pointing out that creation isn't a matter of 'Creator makes something completely original, public consumes/enjoys it until the next work is released', but rather 'Creator is inspired/influenced by something, creates their work, public is in turn inspired/influenced by that, creates their work(s), which creator is in turn inspired/influenced by...'.

                    There is a fundamental difference between back in the olden days and now, capitalism.

                    How so? People have always created, people have always sold or shared their creations. Are you really going to claim that the idea of being paid for a work only sprang into being recently?

                    Of course......I often feel I must voice my opinion because there is often only one flavor of Kool aid available on this site.

                    And you were doing so well too... you should realize that as soon as you start tossing out phrases like 'drinking the Kool aid', you've pretty much admitted that you're not interested in hearing from the other side, or giving their arguments a fair consideration, and will be ignored in return.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      LAB (profile), Jan 8th, 2014 @ 7:35am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                      "They're called 'fans', you know, people who like a band/artist/writer, and so want to share what they like with other people?"

                      Sounds like a bad PR move but there is no inherent right of the fan to reprint the work of someone else. Sorry.

                      "And pray tell, how exactly does a lyric site harm a band."

                      I didn't say it did. If the artist/ right holder doesn't want a site with their lyrics on them that is their right. They control reproduction of their work.

                      "the huge number of lawsuits over people sharing or downloading music"

                      Your numbers above about digital downloads are informative however, I would point out the decline in sales started in 1999, when P2P for music began. They are not an accurate representation missing seven years of data. I agree with you that piracy was mostly a service issue and has stabilized and I think the MPAA needs to realize this. They must change the way they are getting their product to their customers.

                      "as far as the youtube angle there, how many of the songs you direct them to are put up by the band itself, vs fans who want to share the music?"

                      And people wonder why youtube gets sued all the time and is beginning to be hyper-reactive to rights holders. They have created a platform where people who don't own and haven't created a work can put it up and play it at will. In essence creating a video jukebox. Youtube is expected to have generated $5.6 billion for 2013. Content creators rightfully request if using my material to make money then you must pay for the use. Youtube is a company and as such their policies as to their platform are their own. If they don't want to risk the headache of dealing with a right holder claiming use of something on their platform that is their prerogative. To place any amount of someone else's music to film or video requires you pay the right holder.

                      "So first you argue for fair use, then you argue against it by claiming 'just license it'. 'Fair use' does not equal 'Paid use', no matter how much some industry people may wish it did."

                      I said I would argue fair use. To avoid any hassle and if I really wanted to use the clip or music I would probably license it. The choice is yours.

                      "First of all, who goes to, and buys stuff from, a store just because they like what's playing on the radio? Saying that having some background music is providing a 'commercial benefit' seems to be really stretching things."

                      I did not say that people go to a store to hear music, I said there was a commercial benefit. If the music didn't enhance the shopping experience then no business would play it, no? If it had no benefit then why do want to play music in your store anyway? There must be a reason you want to play music in your store, what could it be?

                      "As for why they shouldn't have to pay for it, radio is free to listen to, why should suddenly having multiple people listen to it require the exchange of money(an additional exchange I should say, the radio station likely already paid to play the music)?"

                      I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.

                      "No actually, what it does is brings the 'creators' back down with the rest of the people."

                      All the creator wants is to have the ability to commercially maximize their creation. If everyone creates then what does the term "talent" mean? Yes everyone can sing a song but for some reason many people want to hear the voice of one person over that of another. Anyone that is good at what they do should be compensated as such.

                      "you've pretty much admitted that you're not interested in hearing from the other side."

                      This is patently false. I read every argument and rationally think about it. If I didn't I wouldn't bother posting. If you felt the mention of Kool-aid was offensive I will refrain. I like Grape.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 4:39pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                        I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.

                        Except that on multiple occasions, businesses - big or small - have been approached by performance rights organizations claiming that doing so is a "public performance" and demanded payment.

                        You keep trying to portray yourself as sort of unwilling, but it looks like you'd be more than willing to sue a few grandmothers to pad your profits.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        That One Guy (profile), Jan 9th, 2014 @ 12:17am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                        Sounds like a bad PR move but there is no inherent right of the fan to reprint the work of someone else. Sorry.

                        True, legally at least they are in the right for something like that, but that doesn't stop it from being an incredibly stupid move on their part, to shut down something put together by fans, fans who are only trying to share their love of a band.

                        I didn't say it did. If the artist/ right holder doesn't want a site with their lyrics on them that is their right. They control reproduction of their work.

                        Here's where it can get into a sort of gray area. A straight up lyrics site, is, at least according to the laws, treading on thin ice, and could be shut down. However not too long ago another example was brought up discussing a site that also posted song lyrics, but did so in order for people to deconstruct them, to analyses them and discuss various meanings they could hold.

                        Something like that would likely very much fall into the fair use category, as the lyrics were being posted in order for people to give commentary and analysis on them.

                        So to say 'they control reproduction of their work' is true, but not in all cases.

                        Your numbers above about digital downloads are informative however, I would point out the decline in sales started in 1999, when P2P for music began. They are not an accurate representation missing seven years of data.

                        True, the data, at least from what I saw didn't go back that far, but I'd argue that the main reason album sales might have took a dive around there, and it's something the labels could have fought(similar to how services like iTunes did later), was that for the first time in a long while it was possible to get a song, one or two good songs from an album, and not have to buy an entire CD, one padded out with a bunch of mediocre songs, in order to have access to the handful the person actually wanted.

                        The data has shown, offer people a service that gives them what they want, at a decent price and without too many strings attached, and they are willing to pay, it's just that for so long the labels had been making major money selling entire albums, the idea of people being able to pay less money for only the songs they wanted, was all but unthinkable to them, so for the longest time they refused to offer such, and piracy stepped in and offered what they refused to.

                        Doesn't make the piracy right mind, but it does explain why it would have been so prevalent for so long, before competing services popped up.

                        I agree with you that piracy was mostly a service issue and has stabilized and I think the MPAA needs to realize this. They must change the way they are getting their product to their customers.

                        Unfortunately, their way of 'changing' is the same it's always been, purchase laws in order to lock out competition, and keep things in the 'golden age' where they had all the control. It might take a while, but give it some time, and they'll either adapt and move onto how things work today, or die out as they're replaced by more flexible groups.

                        To place any amount of someone else's music to film or video requires you pay the right holder.

                        They tried to pick a sort of 'middle path' regarding that, with their ContentID system, it's just the execution of it is so borked, and prone to abuse, it's almost worst than having no system at all.

                        Also, as I've noted before, that statement is not correct, fair use rules state that if you're using part of a work for commentary purposes, like say a review, you don't need to pay anyone. The problem is, 'fair use' is something that can be tricky to determine at times, and needs to be examined on a case by case basis, which is something the big players absolutely hate, as their preferred method of dealing with that sort of thing is 'claim everything we can, crush what we can't', so it's no surprise they'd always argue against fair use, means less work for them.

                        I said I would argue fair use. To avoid any hassle and if I really wanted to use the clip or music I would probably license it. The choice is yours.

                        An act that while legally safer(usually), very much does not help, as it furthers the idea of 'Fair use = Paid use'.

                        I did not say that people go to a store to hear music, I said there was a commercial benefit. If the music didn't enhance the shopping experience then no business would play it, no? If it had no benefit then why do want to play music in your store anyway? There must be a reason you want to play music in your store, what could it be?

                        The same could be said of quality carpets, decent AC/heating, lights that don't give people headaches from being under them for a while, and a whole slew of other things, why is it that in the case of radio the potential 'commercial benefit' means that the owners of the songs(which are very rarely the musicians themselves if you're talking about a major label musician) should be paid yet again(as I've noted before, the station playing the music likely already paid to do so, and possibly even was paid, indirectly, to play certain music)?

                        As for why, at a guess I'd say it's because most people don't like silence, having some music playing in the background helps that out.

                        I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.

                        Unfortunately, that's not likely to stop a collection agency or two from trying to shake the store down for whatever cash they think they can get away with. I really wasn't exaggerating earlier when I said they are some of the most greedy groups around.

                        All the creator wants is to have the ability to commercially maximize their creation. If everyone creates then what does the term "talent" mean? Yes everyone can sing a song but for some reason many people want to hear the voice of one person over that of another. Anyone that is good at what they do should be compensated as such.

                        To some extent I agree, to some extent I disagree.

                        I do agree that a creator deserves the opportunity to profit off of their work, but the idea that they deserve to make money off of their creation is one I cannot agree with, as it seems to put the act of creation as higher importance than the quality or 'worth' that society attached to a work, basically saying 'I made something, and even if no one actually wants it, I deserve to be paid for my work regardless'.

                        Regarding the 'talent' bit, while it's true there are people who are more well known, more popular and skilled, and able to get attention and money from their creations, what I object to is the idea that only their creations 'count', or that they somehow created something in a vacuum, ignoring how culture is shaped and shapes the creation of everything, nor just the (relatively) few people who are able to make money or gain attention from it.

                        This is patently false. I read every argument and rationally think about it. If I didn't I wouldn't bother posting. If you felt the mention of Kool-aid was offensive I will refrain. I like Grape.

                        In that case I apologize for the mis-characterization and any offense, just know that in most cases, 'drinking the Kool-aid', or variations of that phrase, is pretty much calling the person you're addressing it to a person who blindly accepts what they're told and parrots it without thought, and so is generally considered pretty insulting, and will be taken as such.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Karl (profile), Jan 9th, 2014 @ 5:03am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                        there is no inherent right of the fan to reprint the work of someone else

                        Yes, actually, there are several inherent rights to do so. You have an inherent right to free speech, even if you're repeating the speech of others. You have an inherent right to the results of your labor, even if those results are the same as the results of someone else's labor. You have an inherent right to private posession, even if you're creating copies of your private posessions to give (or even sell) to others.

                        What there is not, is an inherent right for me to take those rights away from you. I do have such rights under copyright law, but they are not inherent rights; they are solely a creation of the State.

                        Whether it is good or bad that the State remove those rights is an open question. But if we're talking about copyright, it's the only question possible.

                        Your numbers above about digital downloads are informative however, I would point out the decline in sales started in 1999, when P2P for music began.

                        The decline in sales didn't start until 2001, which (coincidentally) was when Napster was shut down. And they didn't reach the low levels that we had in 1982, the year the CD was introduced, until 2009.

                        I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.

                        No, you can't. You may have to pay licenses to rights holders to do so. Certain public performances of over-the-air radio and TV broadcasts are exempted, but by no means all of them. It depends upon what type of store you have, how many square feet your store is, how many speakers you have, the size of your TV, and other things like that. See 17 USC 110.

                        If you felt the mention of Kool-aid was offensive I will refrain.

                        Yeah, 'cause it isn't offensive to say your opponents are just like the suicidal cult followers of Jim Jones. Not at all.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 7:26pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                  Beautiful post, can't agree more.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                JMT (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 6:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                "You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP..."

                No, he doesn't realise that, because it's demonstrably FALSE. That fact that so many (too many) things are covered by IP laws does not mean 'IP' is the reason they exist. You weaken any argument you try to make with this ridiculous claim.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                  Didn't you know that the biggest IP Chapter in the US are the Grocery stores?

                  If there was no copyright, they would stop producing groceries. We would all starve. Is that what you want?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                "You don't care because it is not your profession."

                I don't care to subsidize the professions of others by sacrificing my rights (not to mention the taxpayer dollars required to enforce these laws).

                For instance, I don't care if your profession is to take tax dollars of others and use it for you personally. You should not be given those tax dollars. If the government creates more government waste yes, that's the 'profession' of those government employees being funded at the expense of others, but they are not entitled to a living at the expense of others. Likewise those that benefit from IP are not entitled to being subsidized by others (through the tax dollars required to enforce these laws) by having others sacrifice their rights. You are not entitled to a profession whereby you are being subsidized at the expense of others. Just because it's your profession doesn't make it any less stealing.

                "You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP, not to mention the computer you wrote this comment with."

                I don't believe that for a second, that's a bunch of lies and fear mongering. Even if it is true, which history and the evidence show quite the opposite (that IP law has done more to hinder innovation than to help it and that innovation has advanced perfectly well without IP law), that is a risk I am willing to take. Abolish IP law.

                IP law is a privilege. When the government grants monopolies it has costs to others. Simply asserting that those costs are justified isn't enough. You must prove that they are justified or else if justification can not be proven these laws should be abolished. You have proven nothing.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                "That is just it. You don't care because it is not your profession. You are not a content creator. For some reason anyone who makes a living from the benefit of IP you don't care about."

                IP law is not about supporting a 'profession'. IP law is about serving the public interest. So if I, as a member of the public, do not care about what I get out of these laws vs what I am giving up then that is all that matters. Nothing else matters. If enough members of the public feel the same way then that is the only thing that matters and the laws should be abolished. Nothing else matters. The laws should never be about serving the interests of IP holders. That is just a consequence. Their laws should only be about serving the public interest and as a member of the public I feel that they are not serving my interests, at least not currently. I would rather them be abolished.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                techflaws (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP

                [Citation needed]

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 4:18am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                Also, if you really care about the profession why don't you voluntarily pay for it yourself out of your own pocket. You like a band you fund them instead of making everyone else subsidize them. The fact is you don't really care.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Pragmatic, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 6:50am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Jan 8th, 2014 @ 1:28pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

                You don't care because it is not your profession. You are not a content creator.


                Of all the things the maximalists argue, this is one of the stupidest.

                I am a content creator. My colleagues are content creators. Almost all of my friends are, too. Software developers, filmmakers, musicians, fine artists, etc.

                The vast majority of them (I'd say around 80%) think that copyright law as it exists now is extremely harmful not only to society at large, but to content creators.

                If you really believe that the only people who think that copyright is so broken as to be a net negative are people who don't create and sell content, you are demonstrably incorrect.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          Why bother editing a magazine and paying for health insurance for salaried writers when you can pay Jimmy Wales a few million and he'll keep is foolish drones creating more content for your ad machine?

          This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

          1. The Wikimedia Foundation gets the vast majority of their funding from private donors, not corporations - "ad machines" or otherwise. (Source.)

          2. Wikipedia does not have any advertising on their site, Google or otherwise.

          3. Wales himself receives no salary from the Wikimedia Foundation.

          4. Google does not use Wikipedia content for anything that I'm aware of. Google search returns links to Wikipedia pages, but a link in a search result is hardly "free content." If it is, then they're also getting this "free content" from people who edit magazines and pay for health insurance and salaried writers, so your point is moot.

          Your post is completely ridiculous on every level.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Ellie (profile), Jan 29th, 2014 @ 12:35am

            Jimmy Wales gets no salary

            Are you certain about that? I don't see why he wouldn't get any salary. He should. He does work!

            Jimmy Wales has a variety of shortcomings. I could find many examples of his vanity, accepting large cash honorariums for speaking engagements, sailing on Richard Branson's yacht etc. Nevertheless, Wikimedia Foundation should pay Jimmy Wales. Maybe they should pay him more than they do now. Maybe if he were paid better... well, I've said enough. Everyone who works as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation should be paid a living wage.

            Lots oF people use Wikipedia content, including the U.S. government. Google does too. They link to it for definitions in their help pages, as is their right, under the CC license.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 9:26am

          Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C

          Why not illegalize any kind publication on the internet if you do not have a license to do so?
          Just saying, your arguments are nearing that point very fast...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:05pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      Oh, by the way:

      Google/em>

      ...actually helped author the proposal to put DRM in HTML5.
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/23/microsoft_google_netflix_html5_drm_infection/

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:58pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      The internet is not about making anybody money at all. It's about allowing people to exchange data freely. The moneymaking is purely a side-effect (and not a great one).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 10:12pm

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      You do realize that the people who create most, if not ALL, of the content that makes the Web what it is today have absolutely NOTHING to do with the MPAA, right?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 5:13am

      Re: Congrats to the W3C

      Tell me again how people earn something for their contribution when they post (i.e. give away) content to Facebook and Google+.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:37pm

    Actually, the push to include DRM in HTML5 is all about hastening the transition from Flash to HTML5 across the internet.
    Otherwise, sites such as Netflix will continue to use Flash so that they are able to DRM streamed content,
    requiring users to keep Flash installed, and leaving them vulnerable to any and all unpatched vulnerabilities in Flash.
    HTML5 will certainly become just as targeted for exploits, but at least browser makers won't be dependent upon an outside company to provide security fixes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:53pm

      Re:

      sites such as Netflix will continue to use Flash

      Netflix doesn't use Flash. It uses Silverlight.

      This is why anyone who uses Linux as their OS actually needs to break copyright laws in order to watch content that they paid for.

      Otherwise, you're right about the reason. It still doesn't excuse putting DRM into open web standards.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Arthur Moore (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re:

        The problem is that DRM requires native code execution. So you're replacing one plugin with another. Given the way the media companies operate it will probably require root/administrator privileges too. It's a security nightmare waiting to happen.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:02pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This. The EME solves nothing, and standardizes nothing of importance, at all. You still need proprietary plugins for the DRM'd content, just as you always have before. It's pointless.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 2:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          DRM shouldn't need native code execution.
          Its just the MPAA want to implement it that way.

          There are many open standards that are implemented using open source code that secure things a lot more commercially sensitive than copyrighted films.

          I think the only solution is to kill the MPAA.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Ellie (profile), Jan 29th, 2014 @ 12:51am

          Re: Re: Re: native code execution

          Yes. This is a very convincing argument against DRM in HTML5. Urg... plug-in's.

          I have never used a file sharing site, never illegally downloaded software, music, video or anything else. I'd be happy to give my computer to the MpAA, RIAA, NSA etc. to peruse. I'm very boring! Yet I still don't like the idea of DRM in HTML5. It will cause profound interoperability problems.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jon B. (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 8:15pm

        Re: Re:

        The thing is that they didn't "put DRM into" the web standards. They created a standard place to put the encryption, and not the encryption scheme itself.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Tobias Harms (profile), Jan 9th, 2014 @ 2:22am

        Re: Re:

        Break copyright laws?
        I use Netflix in firefox packed nicely in wine. Not as good as running it natively but surly doesn't break copy right?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:14pm

      Re:

      EME is just a plugin service for 3rd party applications, so the DRM in HTML5 really isn't in HTML but offers developers a way to include third party applications or use default libs to decode the media stream: W3C EME page

      Basically what I'm trying to say, I feel most providers (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon) will still be forced (MPAA) to use some proprietary software with all the bugs/hacks/etc still. Sadly the streams have mostly been decoded from what I've seen on forums, so all the DRM is basically useless and only causes the issues you've talked about.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 4:00pm

      Re:

      Netflix uses Silverlight not Flash.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 4:12pm

      Re:

      Even worse, Netflix uses Microsoft Silverlight.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Soluzar, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 7:07pm

      Re: No flash.

      Netflix DO NOT use Flash. They use Microsoft Silverlight. The two may be in many ways similar, but are not the same thing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:04pm

      Re:

      Otherwise, sites such as Netflix will continue to use Flash so that they are able to DRM streamed content

      So fucking WHAT?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 7:22am

      Re:

      Netflix uses Silverlight, which is even worse as it means Linux users have to use workarounds like patched versions of WINE and pipelight just to get their paid for content.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      chillinfart, Jan 11th, 2014 @ 8:49am

      Re: Net was sold out

      I prefer flash before HTML5. HTML 5 is even more SLOW than flash, this has more evidence using slow CPU as Atom series from Intel and "third world" internet access. And i'm not only talking about streaming, some gov sites are using HTML5, freezing forms when the access is not good.

      In the other hand, plug-ins are like a door lock. If you want to leave it open, discard it; if you don't, develop or choose one.

      If u don't get it, i will explain it better: let them the choice to put lock on their own doors instead forcing all to do (as wants Tim "sold out" Berners-Lee).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:39pm

    Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 4:40pm

      Re:

      average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:39pm

    I'd love to know how much cash flowed and where it went.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:39pm

    Here Lies The World Wide Web
    1993-2014
    It was good while it lasted.
    May Hollywood go down with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:03pm

      Re:

      Nah. The web is still just fine. You can ignore all the DRM stuff and nothing will break. What lies in ruins is the reputation of the W3C.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:40pm

    This is the equivalent of putting a parent who is known to beat their children on the PTA counsel for reducing bullying in school.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:46pm

    If the W3C continues down the road we fear they will just crumble and die and ten years from now we will talk about "hey, remember W3C? Man that was a dumb move they made."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:52pm

    Content is only created when profits are possible.

    "The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet." -- WOW, what a revelation, Mike! Yeah, people who put MONEY in producing content want to get it back and then some. They made it, they own it, YOU DO NOT. Just pay or go without.

    At best, yet again based on Pirate Mike's piratey notions of content being free to grab (maybe advertising supported: he's vague on how a new "business model" might work), including his wacky assertions that content just pops out of the blue at no more than bandwidth costs. See:
    Ya say ya can't compete with free, Binky? -- It's easy! Just forget about "sunk (or fixed) costs"!!!
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923/saying-you-cant-compete-with-free-is-sayin g-you-cant-compete-period.shtml

    Mike is just getting around to noticing the real purpose of HTML 5 is DRM. He's SO 2000. Yet here's me with yet another censored comment from the March 13 item:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/03554322310/disappointing-tim-berners-lee-defends-drm -html-5.shtml?cid=120#addyourcomment

    Copyright holders wanting to be paid is NOT tyranny, no matter how much you want pornz for free.
    On the other hand, Google tracking you continually to affect at least your buying and no way to stop its assaults has intrinsic tyranny: tracking, control, helpless to resist.

    08:50:40[j-501-4]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:57pm

      Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

      That begs the question; who pays you for your endless fountain of bullshit?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:10pm

      Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

      "Content is only created when profits are possible."

      To refute this claim I offer the entirety of human history as proof you're completely wrong.

      ""The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet." -- WOW, what a revelation, Mike! Yeah, people who put MONEY in producing content want to get it back and then some. They made it, they own it, YOU DO NOT. Just pay or go without."

      Definitions of 'free':

      adjective
      1. able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another.
      2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.

      adverb
      1. without cost or payment.

      When you confuse the adjective with the adverb, you look like a complete moron. Again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Internet Zen Master (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:53pm

      Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

      "Content is only created when profits are possible."

      The entire CreepyPasta genre proves your argument invalid. All those nightmare-inducing, paranoia-causing shit was written for free. No guarantee of profit whatsoever.

      Or does purely web-generated works not qualify as content in your fantasy world?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That One Guy (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 5:18pm

        Re: Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

        Not to mention the entirety of fanfiction, which is a massive amount of creation also created without any possible profits.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ldne, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 10:57pm

      Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

      Are you seriously that stupid? Content is created because creative people are driven to make things. If there's no money at all in it they do it as a hobby and spend their own green on it. And in fact there is good quality content all over the 'net produced without the major studios and DRM that does make money.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:07pm

      Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

      They made it, they own it, YOU DO NOT. Just pay or go without.

      The MPAA did not make they Internet, they don't own it, WE DO! Let them build their independent distribution system or get lost.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        techflaws (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:11pm

        Re: Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

        they = the

        C'mon Mike, how about an edit funtion that works for 5 mins after posting?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Jan 8th, 2014 @ 2:43am

      Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.

      Just pay or go without.

      I'm finding it increasingly easier to go without nowadays. Plenty of people I know are doing the same. Your bosses should be afraid of it ;)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    vastrightwing, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 12:56pm

    Legacy

    We live in a world where legacy rules, unfortunately at the expense of all of us.

    The establishment promise innovation and progress. Reality is stifling and lawsuits.

    The MPAA represents stale old gatekeepers doing everything they can to keep the status quo as it was. If they had it their way, we would still be using wax cylinder tubes, scrolls hand written by monks and much worse. Instead, we now have DRM in all kinds of delicious flavors and bright colors. They are busy in their labs and meeting rooms concocting newer more invasive legacy building techniques of crippling our lives by giving us more of what they already know we don't want.

    My prediction is that the MPAA will innovate by creating layers and layers of encrypted, invasive content protection, thus causing our computers to waste gigaflops of bandwidth decoding their newest DRM. They will Geolocate every IP address on the net and restrict where we can watch their precious content and even segregate which devices are allowed to display their content. This my friends is the new world order! They will also learn how many of us are watching their content, how old we are, where they live, how interested they are in it not only will they charge us dearly for this privilege, they will also be selling our own private data to whoever pays them the most, after they made us cough up enough money.

    But boy will this be packaged in bright brilliant colors and brought to life in Digital Dolby + DTS multiplex 4D surround sound with bazillion mega pixels eating away at or monthly data caps. The party will be fantastic!

    Let's not forget that all of this cool technology will come at a high price in license fees the browser companies will have to endure, because all of these bright colors and delicious sounds cost money. This will also be the downfall of this idea: no one will want to buy it. The standard will wither away and won't be implemented by many browsers since it's only a "standard" and for it to succeed, it will have to be implemented well. Only it can't be. It never has. This is DRM 16.100 and just like all the versions before it, it will succeed just as well.

    Good luck guys! I won't be at the Gala.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:07pm

      Re: Legacy

      They will Geolocate every IP address on the net and restrict where we can watch their precious content and even segregate which devices are allowed to display their content. This my friends is the new world order! They will also learn how many of us are watching their content, how old we are, where they live, how interested they are in it not only will they charge us dearly for this privilege, they will also be selling our own private data to whoever pays them the most, after they made us cough up enough money.

      Oh, you mean like Google?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        tek'a, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:24pm

        Re: Re: Legacy

        Oh, perhaps, perhaps, save for some small details.

        Google pays me for the datapoints that I generate, on my own terms, by providing services and content that I want in a very free and broad way.

        The theoretical endless tentacles of artist-damaging middleman groups would be Charging me and Limiting options in a broad way while curtailing my options tremendously.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:00pm

    Showing their stripes

    Once the W3C (and Berners-Lee) accepted the idea of DRM as part of the standard -- particularly in the currently proposed form which will accomplish literally none of the goals they claim they want to accomplish, I knew that the W3C has sold out and abandoned their core principles.

    This move is highly unsurprising. Although I believe that anybody can join the W3C -- if they told MPAA to butt out, that would also have been an ungood move.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    quawonk, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:09pm

    Just another step toward total corporate/government controlled internet. Enjoy the internet while it lasts. I give it 10 more years max.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:49pm

      Re:

      Actually the move of including DRM probably has some roots in wanting to keep government out of the right enforcement/filtering business. The idea is that W3C is convinced that they have to help improve the possibilities for content creaters to enforce copyrights or else the government/trade deal alternatives will be far worse (HADOPI/CAMERUN FILTERS ltd.).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:36pm

        Re: Re:

        then they are operating on the false assumption, that you can ever do enough to satisfy their demands.

        Once these xxAA's have a foot in the door they will never have enough. that is the whole problem in a nutshell.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nigel, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:16pm

    So...

    As soon as I pick my jaw up from the floor I will be going into the pitchfork and torch vendor biz.

    Who and what do we set on fire first here?

    Nigel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    PW097, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:31pm

    DRM Hooks

    I was under the impression that Mr Lee wasn't pushing for DRM in HTML5 but rather hooks that enabled DRM within the HTML5 framework.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:05pm

      Re: DRM Hooks

      That is correct. Which is why the entire thing is pointless except for its political value, and why this makes the W3C look absolutely terrible.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 6:10am

        Re: Re: DRM Hooks

        Maybe it's just me, but having an API for secure key exchange is good. Encrypted broadcasts could be useful for companies to distribute private training material, reporters receiving information from informants (IE Edward Snowden).

        The technology isn't the problem, it's only a problem with how it is used....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jan 8th, 2014 @ 10:46am

          Re: Re: Re: DRM Hooks

          But this "standard" doesn't do that for you. It defines the high-level API, yes, but it doesn't define the parts that are actually more important to be standardized to accomplish the goals you set forth.

          You'll still have to use a proprietary crypto module that isn't part of the standard. You'll still have to find a way to distribute a plugin for the browser to use. Since you still have to do those things, the high-level API gains you literally nothing. Your plugin could just as easily do the key exchange in its own way. That it's "nonstandard" doesn't impact anything at all, since it's just part of the nonstandard bits you have to ship anyway.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2014 @ 7:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM Hooks

            Not exactly true. The standard has a built-in encryption layer, W3C, that must be supported to be complaint.
            The use of 3rd party APIs only are there to increase the level of protection or, like you hate, use proprietary software. As most developers will agree, proprietary doesn't mean better, and in fact usually isn't tested as much so it's usually worse. (IE Flash)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MikeC (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:31pm

    Open Access and Input Anyone??

    We complain we don't have public representation at standards/treaty negotiations.. but as soon as someone with a different view wants a seat that table of the open up everything crowd, we all bitch? Sauce for the goose?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      crade (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:42pm

      Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

      You mean like someone who constantly lies cheats and steals in an attempt to close up everything as much as possible? The open up everything crowd doesn't believe they actually intend to contribute positively to open standards? Your right.. doesn't add up at all lol

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:58pm

      Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

      The MPAA doesn't represent me in any way, shape, or form.

      If the choice is either no representation or being represented by a lying, cheating organization like the MPAA, I'd rather not be represented.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:16pm

      Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

      I actually agree with you.

      My unease about it, though, is that the MPAA is absolutely toxic. They poison pretty much everything they touch, and any influence over the W3C presents a real threat to the future of the web itself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:19pm

        Re: Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

        It is a bit like having a pedophile on your school counsel.. but lets be realistic... html5 is never going to come out anyway :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

          You have a really good point. Also, if it does come out, large portions of it will not be supported by the browsers anyway.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 2:31am

          Re: Re: Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

          That's odd.

          I am already using HTML5 on several sites and my browser has supported it for years.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Jan 8th, 2014 @ 10:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

            No you aren't, as the HTML 5 standard hasn't been ratified yet. What you are using is an implementation of the proposed standard. There is currently no actual HTML 5 standard.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Nigel, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 4:38pm

        Re: Re: Open Access and Input Anyone??

        Anybody got TD points? This belongs at the top of the post.

        Nigel

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 1:49pm

    A warning to the MPAA

    The first thing you need to worry about is your reputation. Back before the Internet days this may not have been such a huge issue since no one really knew who you were and what you do but now your reputation is only getting worse. and as your reputation continues to get worse and worse and public backlash against you continues to grow the foundations of your stability will turn into a house of cards. Beware.

    and, unlike before, the way to 'fix' your reputation is not by bullying your way into a good reputation. Trying to find ways to prohibit criticism or to buy politicians or promotional ads is not going to help. Trying to buy petition signatures is not going to work. Astroturfing will only make things worse. Trying to 'fix' your reputation the old way, by doing what you do best and bullying everyone simply won't cut it in this day and age and will only make things worse for you. You must act morally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:19pm

      Re: A warning to the MPAA

      I don't know... its' true that back before the internet most people only knew of the MPAA as the group that assigned those content ratings. But among sizable number of people who did know who they (and RIAA) were, their reputation was already in the dirt.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 2:40pm

        Re: Re: A warning to the MPAA

        Yes, they exist to take the heat for the studios and labels. They are supposed to have a bad reputation.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          crade (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: A warning to the MPAA

          they exist to manipulate legislation for the studios and labels.. the heat they take is just a side effect of being really really good at their jobs.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 9:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: A warning to the MPAA

            If they can snag up any other negative press than pure legislative proposals and softening of politicians I bet you, they will go there in a heartbeat. They already influence science in the field by sponsoring some research on account of other research as well as taking to the courts... It is just what they are born to do. Manipulating legislators is a bad strategy regardless. You need to hold the argument and by choosing research and court filings to support you can somewhat control the information behind legislation. Give a politician a million and he will support one of your pet projects, give the million to control research you get arguments for precedence in court and you may get 10 politicians to be more receptible to your arguments for years! That is the reason think tanks are so popular. They work well in the longer term.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 3:02pm

    you can definitely bet your arse that they have only joined so they can have a greater influence than had they stayed outside.
    the troubling thing, as stated, is why Berners-Lee has gone down the path he has? surely he cant have been bribed or blackmailed into submission, so what hold has the 'ayes' got over him?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Digitari, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 4:46pm

    Fair pay?

    They realized that the Internet is not just about making Google and Facebook rich, it's about helping everyone who creates content earn something for their contribution. They realized that the only way to do this is to work with the artists and the artists' representatives.

    This is wonderful news for the world because the world flourishes when everyone is rewarded for their work, not just the stockholders of Google.

    Bob, when does Darth Vader get paid???

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-m illion-movie-unprofitable/245134/

    So you are a Hypocrite, or is this OK with you lets see a rebuttle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Erik, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 6:07pm

    Open source?

    I put a very rarely used EDITOR comment when I posted this on OpenStandards.net because I'm having a really hard time understanding how this is supposed to work with open source. It's obvious why Mozilla is not in this group. This cannot possibly be good for Firefox, my favorite browser for privacy and security. I'm having a hard time understanding their plan for open source browsers. This is what they have today (emphasis added):


    5. Simple Decryption

    All user agents must support the simple decryption capabilities described in this section regardless of whether they support a more advanced CDM. This ensures that there is a common baseline level of protection that is guaranteed to be supported in all user agents, including those that are entirely open source. Thus, content providers that need only basic protection can build simple applications that will work on all platforms without needing to work with any content protection providers.


    What exactly does this "basic protection" that open source browsers will be limited to provide? What is a "simple application"?

    You look under this, and unless I'm missing something, all they have for open source browsers is an encryption key for clear text! WHAT?!? Why on earth would anyone want to use "a plain-text clear (unencrypted) key ... to decrypt the source". Is this where open technical standards are going?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 6:19pm

    Next years news will be:

    MPAA drops out of the W3C consortium because it is unable to enact any of its proposals, the process is to open to be of any use.

    No I don't like it, I know the MPAA is toxic and most of their proposals will be toxic, still maybe is time to see how well the system works when toxic waste is introduced in its inner workings, so albeit a bit sad is also exciting.

    Why exciting? because I believe that an open process cannot be undermined easily, I believe an open process is more resilient with little chance of failing completely, maybe this is the time that the MPAA realize what they are up against and if it fails well back to the drawing board, get all the lessons learned and do it again.

    Yes people the MPAA is powerful, yes people the MPAA is not made up of complete idiots they have very intelligent people who rose to the top because they were able to bend the rules of time and space but even them can become anachronistic because this is a dynamic universe not a static one, environments change and the dominant parties at one time become the losers in the next time frame, and I hope that the open process time has come and can survive on its own in this very hostile environment, well I am hoping for it to thrive too, wouldn't that be something?

    Everything is done in public, there are no secrets, there are no lies to be told that can't be found out.

    This time nest year we could all be laughing at how the MPAA met its Waterloo LoL

    or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 7:58pm

    I was going to flame on Sir Tim Berners-Lee, but after some research it seems like he's actually for net-neutrality and open standards. So respect for helping out humanity Mr. Berners-Lee.

    The only reason I can think of that Sir Berners-Lee would sell out to the MPAA, is that he's coming close to retirement age and might want a big nest egg for his retirement.

    Pure speculation on my part, obviously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jan 8th, 2014 @ 10:51am

      Re:

      My speculation is that he fears that unless the big internet companies (who happen to also be the big browser makers) buy into HTML5 then it will never really happen. And the big internet companies, especially Google, really really want this as part of the standard.

      Where I disagree with him is that I think the HTML 5 standard is so riddled with problems and outright faults, even ignoring the DRM stuff, that it should not ever actually happen.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ryuugami, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:16pm

    Not cool indeed

    I like that the story starting with "Not Cool" is on the top of the "Hot Topics" list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    vegetaman (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:29pm

    Wonderful. Just one step closer to device locked content becoming standard.

    "We're sorry, you only purchased this to play on your iPhone. You need to purchase it again to play it on your TV."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Jan 7th, 2014 @ 9:45pm

      Re:

      In that case you tell them to get bent, refuse to buy a thing from them, and instead throw your money at people and companies who actually care about their customers.

      Vote and express your displeasure with your wallet, that's all that lot will pay attention to or care about.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:14pm

    abc

    You do realize that the people who create most, if not ALL, of the content that makes the Web what it is today have absolutely NOTHING to do with the MPAA, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:14pm

    abc

    You do realize that the people who create most, if not ALL, of the content that makes the Web what it is today have absolutely NOTHING to do with the MPAA, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ellyse Taylor, Jan 7th, 2014 @ 11:30pm

    It's weird...

    It's weird because historically the W3C has been behind the browsers, standarizing things after there's a proposed implementation somewhere, but afaik no browser has implemented video tag DRM, so it would be weird if they simply proposed a standard out of thin air.


    Regards:
    http://bit.ly/1jMDvbN

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 6:25am

    ...and nobody saw this coming after Berners-Lee began talking favorably about DRM on HTML5? Really?

    We should have jumped harder on this, people. The **AAs want control of the internet. Don't give it to them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    feedmytv, Jan 8th, 2014 @ 3:04pm

    DRM on DVB. Watch and learn, this is the real world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nelsan Ellis, Jan 9th, 2014 @ 12:32am

    Re

    The solution has always been only one:
    Boycott the MPAA (Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures).
    That's the only message they will understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wayne, Jan 17th, 2014 @ 10:04pm

    Another reason to keep pirating stuff

    I am disgusted by this, but it not really affects me. I download my stuff illegally and this is yet another reason to keep doing it.

    I read about Berners-Lee and heared a TED Talk of him and to me it came across that he is actually a great guy who is all about freedom on the web and openness. This impression has how shattered.

    I hope that somebody will crack this shit DRM wide open but I am afraid it is designed in a way that this will be impossible right?

    MPAA inside W3C is a nightmare.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ivan, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 2:17am

    cunts

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2014 @ 5:52am

    MPAA Fools want to make w3c Hollyweb using Drm.!! Oppose it at:
    https://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This