Slashdot Mirror

Netflix is a danger to the world, a danger to our ability to communicate internationally. Pushing DRM on the world is a sure-fire way to make sure that international cooperation remains impossible. Everyone should be encouraging the people they know to cancel netflix.

Stop giving netflix your attention

Did you think "Digital Restrictions Management" would make accessing content *less* restrictive? It's kind of right in the name.

The W3C was doing what it was designed to do—membership is only available to those who pay, and that means its membership is almost entirely businesses. Calling this selling out misses the point of how the W3C's structure virtually guarantees predictable pro-DRM business outcomes such as this. As DefectiveByDesign.org pointed out long ago, "Companies can impose DRM without the W3C; but we should make them do it on their own, so it is seen for what it is—a subversion of the Web's principles—rather than normalize it or give it endorsement.".

Defective By Design

and

Copyrights Must Expire

and

Copyright Timeline

Just to give you a start...

Why is this group fighting against DRM?

They've written extensively about it, what it is, why they object to it and so on. There are links in TFS, but if you're interested, you can start here:

https://www.defectivebydesign....

Relevant link:

http://defectivebydesign.org/b...

'nuff said.

They're working on exactly that.

Why am I having to read a TorrentFreak article on this? Why is there no mention of it on either http://www.fsf.org/ nor http://defectivebydesign.org/? I don't want to link to TorrentFreak when I share this, nor do I want to link to an obscure PDF file for the original source. It really seems like they should be promoting this on their own site!

Increasingly defective by design, I'm afraid.

Yes, Windows is a non-free operating system as it always was. What inconveniences its proprietor puts in a user's way is up to the proprietor as it always was. You're right to point out free software options, and thanks for doing that! But Windows, Chrome OS, MacOS, GNU/Linux, and some BSD variant are not equivalent alternatives to each other on the grounds of giving users freedom from proprietary oppression. You might as well add the Amazon Swindle to that list too, for all the freedom to read that device gives its users. The details of the lack of freedom differ but it's precisely the same in so far as revealing who has the upper hand. There are variants of GNU/Linux which allow the user to run, inspect, share, and modify the entire OS and recommend only free software be installed on top of that OS.

Just because the proprietor chooses to put malware like hassles, spying functionality, and other things users hate into this variant of Windows doesn't mean another variant is any better. Windows 7 shouldn't get a pass because Windows 10 is too much of a pain to use or becomes untrustworthy. Apple, Google, and Amazon's software aren't on the user's side because those companies are not Microsoft. For all we know these systems have malware working secretly in ways that aren't so obvious. Perhaps a malware mechanism is not so easily identified by locking out so-called "preferences" (they're not really preferences if the user can't really choose how the program works). It's easy for a proprietor to spy on, rat out, and disrupt the user while giving the user the illusion they're in control via configuration choices. What Microsoft has done here with Windows 10 is a matter of degree not of substance.

This is the power of a proprietor at work. The only thing that differs is how much that power is revealed to the user of the proprietary software.

So whether a nonfree OS does this kind of thing now or later doesn't really matter because in all cases the proprietor had the upper hand before, has the upper hand now, and will keep the upper hand for as long as that software is nonfree. All that changes are the details and the revelation to those who look into some of these details.

Nonfree software does not respect your privacy or your work. It doesn't matter who the proprietor is, what OS they're trying to get you to accept, or whether the preferences give users the flexibility users want. This is why Richard Stallman calls proprietary software users "useds".

Which feature films are non-DRM?

Maybe we could have lists of non-DRM movies (probably just Creative-Commons right now)

The Creative Commons movies I can think of are Blender tech demos such as "Big Buck Bunny" and "Sintel". These are shorts, not feature-length.

Even if we establish a DRM-free area in just one genre (e.g. sci-fi), that would still be worthwhile.

I was trying to allude to FSF's guide to DRM-free video, which links to GOG.com's movie section. And last time I checked, GOG.com's movie section was full of video game documentaries and little else.

This is prosumerism, if we cannot buy them, we can make them.

I have a couple questions that would need to be answered before that can become practical: Who pays for their production? And who would pay the damages if, say, it turns out that costume design or music created for the film is an accidental infringement on someone else's work?

Even the DMCA has exceptions regarding interoperability, which this falls under, and using a third party peripheral is not a copying act. If you want to stretch it, this is more akin to buying an off-brand gameboy cartridge; but even there copyright wasn't enough for the draconian desires of the maker, which is why every cartridge is forced to display the brand logo on startup. This was because trademark law was more enforceable, but that abuse is invalid in many regions due to the aforementioned interoperability concerns. There are lots of things wrong with DMCA, but trying to equate third party accessories with copying is pretty nasty FUD, not truth.

In Keurig's position, the thing to do would be to remove the defect from newly built machines, publish a tag to be used on unbranded cups, and preferably also make that tag available as a free sticker at retailers for people who're already burnt by the defective machines.

So taking security seriously is not something we should do?

If you take security seriously, you're not going to use DRM-infested proprietary software at all, fool. In fact, you'd stay far away from *Sony* products, as you should be aware.

Don't understand this at all. What rights am I sacrificing?

Do you know what DRM is? It inherently restricts you.

And obviously proprietary software does not respect the four freedoms.

But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of telling everyone everything about your security system.

Free software is often more secure, so no.

But I really don't see the rationale in avoiding any good product because you don't like the brand that makes it.

It's called voting with your wallet and not supporting evil activities. Sony's products aren't "good" 99% of the time anyway because they're filled with DRM and proprietary software.

All you do by doing that is encourage all of them to make worse products, by not giving the market the signals they need to know what you are looking for.

That makes no sense. You don't buy from them because they're doing Evil Thing X. If lots of people do this and make it known why they are not buying, they will hopefully stop.

W3C still has an important role: they're the standards body.

We've been telling governments for years to use open standards and HTML is often held up as a shining example. A lot of governments have even made commitments to using open standards but if W3C announces that DRM is part of HTML, then governments will accept DRM and they'll think/claim they're doing what we asked with regard to open standards.

So we need to keep telling W3C that we don't want DRM in HTML. And when W3C says "Oh, but Netflix really wants DRM", we just reply that this doesn't require blessing from W3C.

FSF is almost the only organisation campaigning on this: https://www.defectivebydesign....

Accommodating Netflix is often cited as a reason for pushing DRM into HTML5, but this is a fallacy. Leaving aside one's opinion of Netflix, or even the general existence of DRM, it's perfectly possible to have the big DRM companies to solve their problems by using a privately negotiated addition to the HTML5 standard. There's no reason to put it into HTML5.

Many lovers of free software have been pushing for open standards for years, but now we're headed to a situation where someone can request a HTML5-compliant DRM implementation. When we say "use open standards!", they'll reply they're using HTML5. And free software is frozen out completely.

What can one do? Well, the least one can do is sign FSF's petition:

https://www.defectivebydesign.... ...and spread the word that we don't want DRM in W3C stanardards.

Early Tuesday, gamers woke up to find out that they couldn't log in to any Sony Online Entertainment games--no Everquest, no Planetside 2, none of them.

Could the users have used another server to connect with each other? Or is this a case of DRM ("Digital Restrictions Management", when properly viewed from the perspective of its effect on the users) and, more generally, nonfree software restricting users from running the games with other people?

Letting the market handle things led to the situation we now face with DRM preventing people from making choices (highlighting how freedom of choice is so often a scam). This isn't the first instance of DRM providing no benefit to the user (eBook DRM leads to publishers and distributors taking away legally obtained copies of DRM'd eBooks like Amazon.com did in 2012 or making it possible to electronically enforce restrictions one could never get away with in paper books should the DRM proprietor so choose). The issue is not whether a proprietor has or hasn't used DRM to accomplish such a thing, the issue is that DRM grants someone or some organization the power to enforce restrictions like these, restrictions that should not exist. DefectiveByDesign.org doesn't seem to have problems coming up with plenty of other examples of how customers lose with DRM. DRM examples show us that word does not "get around pretty quickly" nor do monopolies "die a miserable death". Today there are people defending the idea of making it easier to get DRM into HTML5 instead of rejecting it out of hand based on principled opposition and experience. If things were as bad as you claim no business would bother with DRM, DRM would be rejected out of hand.

I think this situation is much better understood by looking at this in terms of a minimum acceptable interoperability; something akin to environmental law (recognizing one can't negotiate everything they need on their own so we need to work together to set acceptable standards that let us get what we need) instead of a transactional basis (one-on-one interactions where each user is on their own to negotiate a better arrangement where it's likely no one user can muster the resources to effectively challenge the proprietor). Owner's rights should enter here as well: one should be able to use whatever they want with their Keurig device including less expensive beverage pods than what Keurig sells.

http://www.defectivebydesign.o...

Torvalds has said in the past something about that he doesn't want to associate with "free software" (or at least FSF) types because they're so "extreme"

I can understand that. I wouldnt want to be associated with people like this either! Maybe if those FSF types had spent more time innovating and creating a product people want then people might actually use Free Software, instead it's an attack on proprietary products as they scramble to build a poor immitation. Where is the FSF iPad? or the FSF iPhone? Or even the FSF PC? Always a late-to-the-game me-too product that fails to capture the end user because their *only* play is freedom and very often people would rather sacrifice the freedom to modify and install programs on their device than sacrifice the efficient operation and ease of use and that is their choice.

The FSF needs to prove that free products can compete with proprietary ones in addition to being freedom free and not continue on this misguided idea that the *only* thing that matters is freedom and that people will use whatever rubbish you give them so long as it is freedom free. The ideology *can* succeed but when the leader of it is using wget to pull the text of webpages and email it to himself to view locally that shows exactly what the problem with the Free Software ideology is and why it has failed in the mainstream.

Oh, it was DRM Apple... https://defectivebydesign.org/apple

https://defectivebydesign.org/netflix

https://defectivebydesign.org/netflix

https://defectivebydesign.org/netflix

As a great proponent of software freedom, digital (and other) privacy etc... I can applaud the FSF for bringing to light the issues with common software and hardware and offering alternatives. However, from a practical standpoint, as others have said - these items are only alluring to those who value software freedom above all else. Why? These items typically will be less functional, easy to use, or are otherwise encumbered for all but those who see the value of software freedom and are willing to put in the effort to use it despite the above.

While I know the FSF needs to have uncompromising ideals and push for them - , I do think this can be a starting point for the Linux, FOSS, privacy/security etc... community to use as a learning experience for how to mate the ideals we value to the pragmatic needs of others, especially non-gurus. Taking the items provided as a basis, perhaps we can go a little further..

OS: The FSF suggests Trisquel and an alternative for Windows. While the idea of submitting a Linux distro as a substitute OS is a good one, the difference in experience between Trisquel and Windows for a Windows user may be staggering. This is a distro that does not include, even as an option, anything with a license that doesn't meet FSF standards of freedom. Thus, you're losing a lot of things there even compared to other Linux distros. Telling someone "Oh hey, try this new OS out on your laptop, it respects your freedom and privacy. But uh... your wireless card may not be supported. Sorry. Here's a list of additional dongles you can buy that are supported, through!" isn't going to go very far. There are many distros that may be a better compromise out there. Linux Mint Debian Edition for instance (or even plain Debian) protects a user's freedom/privacy (something Ubuntu sadly, does not), but gives many more options including things like the use of 3D binary GPU drivers etc.

3D Printer - While I'm not versed in depth regarding the state of 3D printing comparisons, it seems like the Lulzbot is a great alternative to the Makerbot; competitive in cost and functionality, while being Free hardware and software. However, it does not seem to be currently available, instead being on backorder. Hard to consider a holiday gift item that may not make it by the holidays! The bigger issue with this item instead is that a 3D printer is a very niche device, especially one as expensive as this. There could probably be a lot of other options for this entry instead; I'll go into that later.

Gift Cards - This was just a missed opportunity. While I do think that a FSF donation/membership gift could be mentioned, this is again a very niche community that is best sought out by those who are most interested. Those without the technical interest and know how, will probably think "gee...thanks" and look at it the same way as if someone bought them one of those "congratulations, someone has purchased a cow for some impoverished people somewhere in your name!" - unless the person is very into the "cause", its not so much a gift for them as it is spending money on something the buyer values but the recipient may not. However, there are tons of alternatives for an iTunes giftcard that would be a good FOSS analog. How about one of the DRM-free media stores, like Magnatune or 7Digital? Even FSF's own Defective By Design campaign lists many of them - http://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide/audio - wouldn't this be a better alternative, showing people that they can buy music unencumbered by DRM elsewhere?

Laptop - This is where I get a little frustrated. I'd love to go out of my way to buy a Libre laptop, or even just one that comes with Linux installed and supported natively. However, so many of the Linux system integrators..well, just don't cut it. Consider that we're increasingly pushing towards "tablet convertible" laptops, ultrabooks, and even luxe power/aesthetic balanced models. 10 point multitouch screens, glass trackp

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/netflix

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/netflix

Fuck that.

As Richard Stallman has been pointing out for at least 2 years now in his talks; proprietors have not given up on DRM. Spotify (audio) has digital restrictions management (DRM) in it. The FSF's Defective by Design campaign reminds us of many examples where DRM is up and running: "In 2009, Amazon remotely deleted copies of George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, that were distributed through the Kindle store. This chilling example of potentially malicious behavior would have never been possible without DRM.". Netflix uses DRM and Netflix is a proponent of HTML5's Encrypted Media Extensions, the name for the mechanism by which DRM is standardized through the W3C. Steam won't let users sell their games or share games with a friend after playing them and if one tries to do so anyhow, Steam will disable one's account, thus taking all of that user's Steam games away.

I would hesitate to call this "[winning] the DRM wars" and I would not want to know what losing looks like. This state of affairs is why Defective by Design campaigns to educate users on what DRM is, how DRM hurts users, and to politically organize to fight DRM.

As Richard Stallman has been pointing out for at least 2 years now in his talks; proprietors have not given up on DRM. Spotify (audio) has digital restrictions management (DRM) in it. The FSF's Defective by Design campaign reminds us of many examples where DRM is up and running: "In 2009, Amazon remotely deleted copies of George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, that were distributed through the Kindle store. This chilling example of potentially malicious behavior would have never been possible without DRM.". Netflix uses DRM and Netflix is a proponent of HTML5's Encrypted Media Extensions, the name for the mechanism by which DRM is standardized through the W3C. Steam won't let users sell their games or share games with a friend after playing them and if one tries to do so anyhow, Steam will disable one's account, thus taking all of that user's Steam games away.

I would hesitate to call this "[winning] the DRM wars" and I would not want to know what losing looks like. This state of affairs is why Defective by Design campaigns to educate users on what DRM is, how DRM hurts users, and to politically organize to fight DRM.

As Richard Stallman has been pointing out for at least 2 years now in his talks; proprietors have not given up on DRM. Spotify (audio) has digital restrictions management (DRM) in it. The FSF's Defective by Design campaign reminds us of many examples where DRM is up and running: "In 2009, Amazon remotely deleted copies of George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, that were distributed through the Kindle store. This chilling example of potentially malicious behavior would have never been possible without DRM.". Netflix uses DRM and Netflix is a proponent of HTML5's Encrypted Media Extensions, the name for the mechanism by which DRM is standardized through the W3C. Steam won't let users sell their games or share games with a friend after playing them and if one tries to do so anyhow, Steam will disable one's account, thus taking all of that user's Steam games away.

I would hesitate to call this "[winning] the DRM wars" and I would not want to know what losing looks like. This state of affairs is why Defective by Design campaigns to educate users on what DRM is, how DRM hurts users, and to politically organize to fight DRM.

As Richard Stallman has been pointing out for at least 2 years now in his talks; proprietors have not given up on DRM. Spotify (audio) has digital restrictions management (DRM) in it. The FSF's Defective by Design campaign reminds us of many examples where DRM is up and running: "In 2009, Amazon remotely deleted copies of George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, that were distributed through the Kindle store. This chilling example of potentially malicious behavior would have never been possible without DRM.". Netflix uses DRM and Netflix is a proponent of HTML5's Encrypted Media Extensions, the name for the mechanism by which DRM is standardized through the W3C. Steam won't let users sell their games or share games with a friend after playing them and if one tries to do so anyhow, Steam will disable one's account, thus taking all of that user's Steam games away.

I would hesitate to call this "[winning] the DRM wars" and I would not want to know what losing looks like. This state of affairs is why Defective by Design campaigns to educate users on what DRM is, how DRM hurts users, and to politically organize to fight DRM.

Reminder to sign the FSF-sponsored petition against DRM in HTML 5 if this bothers you. Link

https://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix

https://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix

https://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix

Which is exactly why Microsoft isnt getting a sale from me. You dont forgive the abusive boyfriend just because he promises to stop beating you.

so, then you are not gaming on Sony or Apple either then, Wii only?

Here's my answer to that!

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/

Never would I by defective equipment from the start.

It is defective by design. I must only use MicroShaft solutions. Locked in to one vendor. Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is not just encryption. It is any technique used to restrict me from exercising my choice. My choice of operating system, my choice of browser and my choice of networking technologies .There are web standards that they could use to develop for a wide ranging os's and browsers. Instead, they use proprietary/DRM'd technologies causing me to be at the mercy of Microsoft. They are restricting me to one crappy vendor's solutions. Why? As much as Microsoft doesn't like it, the tech industry is more than just Microsoft. And now with the Win8 and Win9 Microsoft lockdown, it is more imperative that I move my clients off of Microsoft's solutions as much as possible.

is there ever a time when DRM is justified?

No. It's defective by design. It cannot co-exist with general-purpose computers, and so the content cartel seeks to eliminate general-purpose computers and put them under some form of centralized control. That is, in a word, evil.

My focus here is the aspect of how DRM protects the rights of content creators (aka, artists) and helps to prevent people freely distributing their works and with no compensation.

There is no "right" to prevent others from reading or copying a work. I'm all for authors and musicians getting paid, but I've been arguing for over a decade now that the way to do that is to eliminate copyright and establish a royalty-right, modeled after songwriter royalties. I can sing "Tangled Up In Blue" for free at a party; if I play it at the bar, using it to make money, Dylan gets his nickel. I'm happy if people share my book or my album for free; if they make money off of it (putting it on an ad-supported site, for example), I want a cut. (The book is not CC licensed but will be DRM free; I intend to CC license a later edition after my publishing contact expires.)

Unless your video format is really broken, you don't have to do anything special for video

Publishers of videos distributed under proprietary commercial licenses tend to prefer intentionally broken formats. These publishers use digital restrictions management to deter casual copyright infringement or charge the advertisers per impression.

Why do people think that no one complained about Apple's lock down? They've had a walled garden in place since iOS 2.0 and it's always been a point of contention. Secure Boot just brings the threat of universal lock down that much closer.

Well to be fair both the FSF and EFF have been heavily involved after Apple demonised their customers calling them criminals for for jailbreaking Apples Phones(not theirs). Ignoring the fact that those are *electronic* devices and Apple is nowhere near a monopoly (I now its not a good answer for apple users), but again the same groups are not just focused on Microsoft. As for the FSF a quick Google gives this http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/1256, although the jailbreak DMCA exemption for the iPhone...and not the tablet, have been big news on most technology sites.

Thankfully, it is axiomatic that Stallman Is An Extremist,

DRM is bad http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ "Digital Restrictions Management is technology that controls what you can do with the digital media and devices you own. When a program doesn't let you share a song, read an ebook on another device, or play a game without an internet connection, you are being restricted by DRM." most users would argue wanting to do those things isn't extreme.

* http://www.defectivebydesign.org/amazon-kindle-swindle
* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html

DMCA is Defective by Design. join http://www.defectivebydesign.org/

Ha, bullshit! I don't even have to click on your link to prove it either.

Ask any lawyer. I promise you they see absolutely nothing wrong here with perpetuating their existence (and more importantly, their revenue streams)

DMCA is Defective by Design. join http://www.defectivebydesign.org/

And the tricks' on you: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/amazon-kindle-swindle

And where the fuck was RMS when Apple was doing the same to iOS for fricking years?

Free Software Foundation "Defective By Design" site, specifically highlighting the locked down nature of the ipad. Not sure if it's directly steered by Stallman, but I'm pretty sure he's always been vocal about the evils of DRM in Apple products.

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/

Mainly covers DRM products, but this sentence from their website is relevant:

These products have been intentionally crippled from the users' perspective, and are therefore "defective by design".

The Nintendo 3DS is defective by design

Then I found about the terms, and lost all interest.

With the kind of crap included in TOS the only way I would get one is if they paid me for it.