What's Actually Wrong With DRM In HTML5?

kxra writes "The Free Culture Foundation has posted a thorough response to the most common and misinformed defenses of the W3C's Extended Media Extensions (EME) proposal to inject DRM into HTML5. They join the EFF and FSF in a call to send a strong message to the W3C that DRM in HTML5 undermines the W3C's self-stated mission to make the benefits of the Web 'available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.' The FCF counters the three most common myths by unpacking some quotes which explain that 1.) DRM is not about protecting copyright. That is a straw man. DRM is about limiting the functionality of devices and selling features back in the form of services. 2.) DRM in HTML5 doesn't obsolete proprietary, platform-specific browser plug-ins; it encourages them. 3.) the Web doesn't need big media; big media needs the Web." Also: the FSF has announced that a coalition of 27 web freedom organizations have sent a joint letter to the W3C opposing DRM support in HTML5.

Comments

Downs Syndrome is no joke, but you are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that what the Tard Party calls it when a loss of 700k jobs per month becomes a gain of 200k jobs per month, and the stock market hovers near all time highs, while the housing market picks up steam?

Let's be real here for a moment.

You have Down Syndrome.

You should have been aborted, but you weren't so please shut the fuck up.

Re:Bias

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Uh...wut? How the fuck has gun control been shown to reduce violence?

Where I live, (Phoenix) there are basically no restrictions on firearms. You can walk around with a pistol concealed in your jacket and an assault rifle slinged around your back, and nobody will bother you. No permits of any kind required for any of these. Phoenix isn't a small city either, it's the 6th largest in the US.

Yet some place like Chicago, where you basically aren't allowed to own anything useful for that purpose, and even if you do, it has to be disabled to the point that it is useless in an emergency and can't be carried anywhere, has a higher per capita firearms related offenses.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

Here's another little factoid for you to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Sort that list by the brady score, then look firearm related homicides per capita figure next to it. There is practically zero correlation.

One interesting thing (anomaly perhaps?) is that the brady index has no data on DC, yet it is well known to be one of the most restrictive in the US. Yet it simultaneously has the worst figures in all of them for firearms related homicides.

If you want to reduce firearms related offenses, I'd say the best way is to simply legalize all narcotics for recreational use. Basically, just end the drug war. Arizona, California, and Texas are probably harmed the most by it. Arizona is also harmed by illegal immigration, as it has the highest rate of kidnappings of any city in the world, nearly all of them related to immigrants holding other immigrants for ransom. I'd bet that this also contributes to homicides by firearms.