I really don't like that news. I love Phoronix and read it every day. But I really disagree how Michael you provided this information:
1) Your opinion is given and not argumented. You state that internet won't exists without DRM, but it has for a long time now (with some exceptions)
2) You don't explain the technical concept behind that "standardization" so readers have to trust you but can't make their own opinion without reading technical documentation outside your news. So you provide little added value and doesn't gives the intellectual keys to thing about it. The fact is that with the current proposal, CDM's will always be arbitrary hidden and private code, connected to the EME API. So in substance:"There's not going to be an Internet without DRM, so while the Free Software Foundation and others may be against EME, it's at least a standardization on HTML5 rather than all the different DRM protection schemes in Flash, Silverlight, browser plug-ins, etc. "
- CDM's will have the same problems than current solutions : they will be compatible with operating systems only in function of the developpeur knowledge/will (or his employer one of course). So if that "standard" is accepted, probably that more content on the web won't be accessible to Linux and exotic/minor hardwares and softwares.
- CDM's will need to be downloaded and installed before viewing the website that use it (the code is external to the browser so, can we trust it? Probably that browsers will display a popup saying : this website need an external plugin to show its content. Do you want to install it? yes/no). So, more popups in our life and more unknown code to be installed from the web!
In my opinion, it's not something that will make the web better but worse!
I want to add that the main problem of the current press (except some of course, included Phoronix, most of the time) : is that they only relay the information without any more deeper analysis that helps reader to understand and make their opinion by themselves. I hope phoronix will keep their readers informed and enlightened by the news.
I suspect that the word "standard" makes automagically happy a lot of Linux' enthousiasts but it can be a trap, like the word "open-source" and others.
So what we're actually trying to do is put our money where our mouth is, do more than just give lip service about sharing, practice what we preach. If we teach our kids that sharing is good, surely we should lead by example? Surely we should also implement in the real world laws and infrastructures that allow sharing?
And there's nothing counterproductive about that. Some content producers do all they can to fight the idea of sharing... so what? We don't have to pander to them. They have to pander to US, because we are the ones where their money comes from. The onus is on THEM to develop their service to be so good that people will find it easier, more convenient, to buy from them than pirate their content through torrent. Or alternatively, build their business model around sharing, so that it doesn't matter if people share their content - or better yet, take advantage of that sharing network, use that distribution network for free, get free hype, monetize later (or before, whatever works).
Sharing *can* be good, but it isn't always so (consider: sharing secrets). You seem to be trying to take the morals outlined in books for children, declare them as absolute and then apply them to the world, regardless of context.
Music was being pirated online long before that same music was being sold online. That they then switched to selling it online surely doesn't make the piracy okay?Originally Posted by dee.
Under your system the GPL wouldn't work. The system you are talking about essentially describes the abolition of the notion of copyright: everything would be free to share with anybody and the author would have no say in how their works are used. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright, neither could the BSD license.
Somehow though, when you take that sharing out of a library and do it online, it stops being a good thing and is called a crime. That's just absurd. The sharing of information, entertainment, content, is something that enrichens all of mankind.
Furthermore, we teach our children that sharing is good, because it's an intrinsically good value: when you share something with a friend, you can both enjoy it. If you just hoard it for yourself, you'll have your thing but no one to enjoy it with. Humans are social animals and require interaction with others. So that is why we share things. It's the way society functions, by sharing things with each other: experiences, knowledge, feelings, things... basically almost every aspect of civilized society is based on sharing in one way or another.
Unfounded assumption, ad hominem.The way you say this makes it sound very much like you are one of the people who's work is not being shared indiscriminately between thousands or millions of strangers.
What? You're not making sense. Sharing of content was ok before we had silly "anti-piracy" laws. It didn't ruin the music industry then, just like C-casettes didn't ruin the industry, and so on. Why should the record labels be given the power to decide how we share information with each other?Music was being pirated online long before that same music was being sold online. That they then switched to selling it online surely doesn't make the piracy okay?
If I go to a friend's house and listen to music he has on CD's, that's ok and perfectly legal. If I hang out in a virtual chatroom with the same friend, and he streams music over the internet for me to listen, suddenly it's a crime. How's that make sense?
Wrong, strawman argument, absolutely preposterous. Copyright isn't a simple thing, it's an umbrella term for various monopoly rights assigned to content creators by governments and enforced by governments. The right to share content freely for noncommercial purposes wouldn't require the abolition of copyright altogether, nor would it have any effect on the GPL. The right to copy and share is separate from right of ownership, the right of attribution, the right of monetization and the right of modification. Any of those rights wouldn't be affected by legalizing free sharing for noncommercial purposes.Under your system the GPL wouldn't work. The system you are talking about essentially describes the abolition of the notion of copyright: everything would be free to share with anybody and the author would have no say in how their works are used. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright, neither could the BSD license.
Also, your first hypothetical is absurd and disingenuous. Eye-to-eye retribution cannot be allowed because we couldn't have an organized, civilized society that way. We need laws and police forces to guarantee that people who harm others can be put away where they can't keep harming others, but allowing retributive violence would only undermine that structure and make the situation spiral out of control very fast. We need to be able to guarantee that people have the right to walk about unharmed, and to do that, we need the structure of law and law enforcement.
That however doesn't apply to concepts like sharing. You can't say that all of civilized society will collapse if people are allowed to share content. People already share content and it hasn't collapsed society. To the contrary, sharing is actually essential to a civilized society.
Stop taking things out of context.Haaa. So comparing copyright to copyright is not comparable, comparing copyright to property suddenly is?
Sure I do. If I copy a DVD, I pay for the empty disc, I pay for the electricity required to run the DVD burner. If I torrent files, I pay for the electricity and the internet connection and the hard drive space to host the files.And in this case, you don't pay for the labour or materials.
Furthermore: If we could duplicate chairs for free, would that also then need to be banned? What about when 3d printers mature? Will we extend copyright to cover the ideas or models of physical objects? The copyright mafia is already attempting to do this.
No I don't. We can take turns reading, read out loud to each other, or whatever. I can legally photocopy the entire book for my own use and let my friend read that. And I don't see how that is all that much relevant in any case.You need to buy another copy if you want to read at the same time.
So you assert. But we're not talking about unrestricted copying here - only sharing for noncommercial purposes. So that if a file is published, made available to the public, then everyone is free to use it for noncommercial or personal use.Transferring the ownership should definitely be allowed. Outright unrestricted copying - not.
So, if we had replicators, you'd want to cripple them so that they couldn't replicate "copyrighted" content? Imagine: we'd have the ability to create whatever we want in unlimited quantity, yet we couldn't because some corporation would "own" the rights to certain objects? How would that benefit anyone except those corporations? It's a bleak future you're painting here...There is scarcity – of money. It costs to produce the goods. If we had replicators, then there would be the same problem – if anyone could take your chair and make a copy of it freely, then the original creator of your chair could only sell a few chairs.
And the scarcity only exists in the production of the content - not the content itself. Once the content is produced, it is no longer scarce. Therefore, it only makes sense to move the monetization phase to where the scarcity is - the production phase, not the distribution. Like I said, get the money in advance, or figure out a way to monetize afterwards, or some combination thereof. There are endless possibilities to monetize on content without restricting free sharing.
Yes, and with free sharing, you could still say "you're not allowed to reuse this image". Noncommercial use being free would still allow you the choice to say "I won't let you use my work for profit without my permission". When it comes to sharing, no, you can't do that, because if you host your image publicly on the internet, then anyone can link to it, anyone can view it for free on their computers. That already constitutes as sharing.Yes, that's unreasonable in that you can't unsee what you already saw. But it is perfectly reasonable to say "you are not allowed to reuse or share this image". It's actually how it is for most images right now. You are free to share the link to the image, though, since the link itself is an address, it's not copyright. You are also free to use the image under Fair Use.
We, the people, collectively own all content. Try to think about it for a while.That's ridiculous. You don't own copyright entertainment. The authors own it. You only own what is in the Public Domain.
Oh, like the humble bundle only makes a few dollars each round? Right... There already are people doing this exact thing. They tell people "pay what you want" and people do pay because they want to support the content creators when given the chance.Again, it's like putting up a "donate" button. You'll get a few donations, but that's it.
Also, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. If you make buying the content legally much easier, more convenient, or otherwise beneficial compared to torrenting it, then the consumers will buy it, regardless of the fact that they have to pay more. If you can't create a distribution model that can compete with the convenience of torrents, then what can I say... you need to innovate more.
If someone's business model only works by restricting sharing, then their business probably deserves to be ruined. By allowing free sharing, we automatically incentivize all content creators to implement business models that allows them to monetize regardless of sharing.Cripple – no. Abide the law – yes. You can copy the content, but you shouldn't, because it ruins the business of the author, and that's what people should be made aware of.
We can abide the law after we change the law.
Not in everything, no. There exists evidence for most things I'm saying.And you're not?
No, they are becoming irrelevant. Which is why they are trying to cripple the internet, to force people to use their services. They don't have any function, we don't need them for anything. We can get our content produced without the help of gatekeepers. We have even decentralized funding, we can do everything from the grassroots up now. Decentralization is the future. When bitcoin matures, we'll get rid of all the old power structures that hold people back and keep us under the boot of the corporate thugs.And again, they aren't irrelevant, they do their functions. It's smaller than before, but it's there.
You need to actually read some history. Communism, as implemented in Soviet Russia, was a centralized control mechanism. It had really nothing to do with a decentralized form of government that communism was supposed to be in the beginning. It was full of corrupt officials oppressing the people. For that matter, communism also hasn't failed, because we still have communist countries. And even so, communism has actually nothing to do with any of this. Free sharing is more in line with free market economy, anyway.And how do you propose you do that? Communism tried. It didn't work, because people are more selfish than altruistic.
People are selfish? Tell that to every charity fundraiser ever. Tell that to people who volunteer their time and money to help the less fortunate. There's a shitload of altruism in the world, people will help each other if you give them the chance to do it. Your attitude seems frankly kind of sociopathic - if you're uncapable of feeling empathy for others, then it stands to reason for you to assume that everyone acts only for their own self-interest. But that's actually not in evidence, because we can see it clearly every day that there are plenty of people who do things out of altruism.
And that's why it shouldn't be used for offline games. Online games, like WoW or such, are a much better match for that particular business model. Again, not everything has to use the same business model.Yeap. And that's what we call DRM. Because if offline games would have to be renewed every once in a while, and would rely on a central server to do so, then if the scheme malfunctions, you are locked out of the game.
That would constitute as commercial use so they couldn't do that legally. "Free sharing for noncommercial purposes" does not mean that copyright is abolished entirely. Come on, we've been over this already!Yeap. So cinemas would just use a downloaded version of the film and wouldn't pay the authors a dime. Good times.
Firstly, Openshot managed to raise a lot of money, surpassing their goals clearly, despite the fact that people can still benefit from the final product whether they contribute or not.Things like Kickstarter always have tiers. Each tier adds to the value, and demands more money in return. That's why it works – you actually get something valuable in return.
Secondly, there's no reason why there couldn't be tiers. Pay more, get access to developer blogs, get inside info before others, that kind of stuff. Get merch, posters, t-shirts, keychains. Pay a lot more, get your face in the game as some side character. There's lots of possibilities for someone who uses their imagination.
Thirdly, there's also no reason why "tiers" are something inherently necessary to a crowdfunding model. Assuming that we live in a world where free sharing (for noncommercial purposes, since I seem to be having to remind you) is allowed, then there's incentive for the game makers to develop a crowdfunding channel that is big and popular and easy to use enough that there's enough people to contribute to all kinds of projects. But that would also mean that there would be a paradigm shift, a change in the way of how we see "buying a game". The benefit that someone gets from contributing is a collective one: "I will contribute, because that way I get to ensure this game gets made". It's like voting with your wallet, what games you want to get produced and what not. And it's less of a risk for the producers too, because they get to know in advance if something is worth creating or not.
Yeah, go figure... Now you're back to the "stealing" rhetoric. You can't steal something that isn't property.We also teach that stealing is bad. And if it's sharing with a friend, it's not bad, it still counts as personal use. If it's sharing with everyone in the world, then it's no longer that. It's a crime.
If you share something with one person, it's ok, but if you share with everyone, it's a crime? Where do you draw the line then? Can you share with 10 people? 100? 1000? What if I only share something with my friend, but he shares it with his friend, who shares it with her friend... is that ok then or is it stealing?
Free sharing does not equate to content being free.Sure, you're right in that they should make the content easily available to everyone. But not free.
Furhtermore, you have to look at this from a pragmatic viewpoint as well. We have tons of people who share content. Is it constructive to criminalize it? What about in 10 years when it's even more prevalent? Is it ethical to apply the law selectively? Which path of action results in the least harm to society?
It's the same thing as with the war on terror, or the war on drugs - it's pointless to treat a social problem as a criminal one.