2013/2/12 Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us > >wrote: > > > The only really interesting thing in the new charter seems to be the > > explicit call for standardizing "playback of protected content" for the > > HTMLMediaElement, which is pretty much codewords for DRM. > > > > DRM is fundamentally at odds with the notion of an open web and the HTML > > specification. The purpose of good specifications is to make it possible > > for anyone to implement a browser that can render the web. The purpose of > > DRM is to make it possible for content owners to give only some browsers > > the ability to play their content. DRM also defeats "save", sharing, and > > remixing, which are fundamental aspects of the web. > > > > Whether or not there are practical short-term compromises that should be > > made to make a better alternative to Silverlight, I don't think that it > > should be within the scope of "HTML" to do that; it should be a separate > > effort, highly targeted at solving the "devices based on HTML currently > > can't play netflix content" problem without making any long-term > > commitments to DRM in the browser. > > > > If you really care about this, please contribute to the discussions on > public-html-admin/public-html-media. Thanks :-) >
I agree wholeheartedly with Benjamin and care about this, but I don't have a lot of time to get into this presumably time-consuming discussion on a W3C mailing list --- so I'd just like to express support to any Mozilla representative fighting this fight there. Beyond the objection of principle (which I agree too -- DRM is incompatible with the notion of open standards), I'd also make the argument that we shouldn't let content owners impress us too easily with claims that particular protection measures would be a requirement before serious content would move to open Web standards. In the WebGL working group we've received input from content developers/owners claiming that various flavors of protection (e.g. they wanted binary shader formats) were a requirement before any serious commercial content would move to the open Web platform. We just ignored them, and big content started moving to WebGL anyways. Benoit > Rob > -- > Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur > Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl > bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat > lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir > — whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb > tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28] > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
