Technically, when it comes to what is standard in HTML video, it is DRM free because there is no DRM implementation of video in HTML. That some form of DRM is common in video doesn't make it a standard, especially since it isn't standardized. I think it's also worth noting that a substantial amount of video traffic is illegal downloading and streaming, so its worth taking in mind as to what is standard.
A DRM standard would necessitate that it can't be successfully performed by any party on any device. Open interoperation is not a possibiilty If it's an open DRM, and the DRM itself is part of the standard, then its not going to be even slightly effective DRM. As it stands, the DRM itself is likely going to be a proprietary add-on if not multiple, competing proprietary add-ons, so there's no purpose of having it be part of HTML. Other elements won't be able to freely interact with it, or else it could be circumvented with simple javascript.
It's fully capable of playing the video and probably utilizing whatever underlying encryption is being used. There are no new capabilities for the end user.
It has prevented copying. What is hasn't done is prevent the proliferation of illegal copies in any substantial way, and it has also meant that legitimate users have been pushed into picking up 'pirate' copies just to avoid the inconveniences needed for their own legal usage. This often leads to reduced sales and habits towards going for the illegal copy in the first place. When the DRM is broken once, infinite infringing copies can be made, and with the internet, they are often more easily accessible that legitimate sources.
You are right, they shouldn't be motivated by politics, such as asshats like yourself insisting that we should compromise the goals of the W3C for being able to watch movies. It serves no technical goal and has no useful purpose, therefore their efforts would be better spent on absolutely anything else.
Actually, there is. the tag works with DRM free files and formats just fine. Movies can be put into those formats and hosted on the same servers as the web pages. What's being excluded is the legal access to that media via major websites. That's a legal problem, not a technological one, so the solution would be a legal answer, not a technological one.
It would be quite wonderful, as we'd have a much better signal to noise ratio in the political system. However, while I understand that some people are always going to be gullible, you have to draw the line somewhere. If you cater your standards to the lowest common denominator, all that will happen is that we'll engineer a better moron that requires even lower standards.
You sure about that? We don't have much evidence from this article alone of the kinds of posts made. However, judging from most fake accounts of public figures on facebook, its probably pretty clearly fake.
Just because TFS says the posts were diplomatically damaging doesn't make it the truth. It's most likely satire/parody that got under his skin because it had too much truth to it.
Maybe I missed it, but all I saw were mentions of "pretty lame" comments about politicians within his own country. The posts were probably childish, asinine, and in no plausible way causing confusion for anyone remotely competent, and yet, I'd say there's a decent chance this account has been a better influence on Australian and international politics than the real McCoy.
Facebook also probably has decent lawyers who can point out the reason for the law is to stop actual fraudulent impersonation, like trying to get money from people under false pretenses. Outside of that, the first amendment provides good protection, especially if the intent is to parody Nelson.
Actually, you can totally sell it under both the GPL and BSDL. GNU has a page just about that and any software that you can't legally sell is not free software by the FSF's standards. What you can't do is restrict downstream users from modifying or reselling it. There's also the requirement of making source code available to those who you distribute to and attribution, the latter of which BSDL requires as well.
Now, from a practical standpoint, you might have limited success trying to sell something without a government backed monopoly on it, but that's not because the GPL or BSDL is forcing you to not sell, that's normal market forces in action. You are not having success because you can't force others from competing with you, which puts you in the same boat as all other businesses.
Actually, free software was the older term, and the definitions of 'open source' and 'free software' are almost entirely identical. There aren't many licenses that meet the definition of one but not the other, and they aren't very widespread. All of the licenses that showed up on the chart are both free software and open source. I'm tired of the unbacked idiocy that free software means copyleft.
Never heard of a currency being censored. Perhaps you mean "it's useful for giving money to wikileaks"? It seems the same as mailing an envelope full of cash in that regard, except less private.
Mailng money has a number of problems, especially internationally It also requires a steady physical address or a consistent means of finding out one's address.. For all practical purposes, if you are going to send money to wikileaks, you would have to do it through a large company that will be easily intimidated by a government agency.
How so? Every transaction is completely traceable - heck, you pay a transaction charge to have it traced. I guess it's more private than an American checking account, but less private than sending cash, or gold, or stamps. For example, it certainly seems easy enough for the US government to discover the IDs of wikileak's wallets and then discover the ID of every wallet that sends them money, and then hassle anyone using any of those wallets for anything non-anonymous (and, worse, to do that retroactively to the dawn of bitcoin if they're on a witch-hunt).
The trivial creation of multiple wallets can make it easier for both Wikileaks and those sending them money to obfuscate their trail. They could reasonably set up a different wallet for every single transaction.
Didn't this exact same information get posted a while ago, and then a few days later we got a rebuttal from a different source? The difference is in how you slice it. This article is using the number of projects. If you go by lines of code, I seem to recall it being quite different, and if you went by number of commits, it'd probably be very different as well. Trends in software licensing are not accurately represented by sound bites, and very few studies on the matter seem to be doing anything remotely comprehensive on it. The headline might as well be, "A lot of small projects have no or ambiguous licensing, and the relative growth of different licenses is too complex to trivially measure." However, that's not clickbait because its boring and more or less common sense.
There are plenty of other reasons to prefer alternative currencies, such as being censorship resistant. There's also the potential for greater privacy.
It is a currency. It is something that has a perceived value and is used for trade. In prison, cigarettes are a currency. In some places, guns are a currency.
Actually, if the DMV shut down and all licenses were invalid, but no other legal changes occurred that would still be separate from the requirement of a license to drive. Roads could still be used by vehicles that don't need a license, and vehicles that do could still use strictly private roads in most jurisdictions, but automobiles would not be able to be used on public roads.
Your analogy is poor, and I think the root of the problem is your gross misconception of copyright. Copyright is an exception to the norm of freely copying. In the grand scheme of tings, even our obscene copyright lengths are minuscule compared to the amount of time they will be in the public domain.
Absent copyright, you can copy whatever the hell you want. If Congress decided that today, the grand experiment of copyright was a failure and they were done with it, then anybody would be able to copy anything freely. WIthout copyright, there are no copyrighted works, and you can still copy a copyrighted work under a number of exceptions.
However, a few centuries ago, the story was very different. Copyright DID convey a positive right. As a general rule, ownership and use of a printing press was illegal. However, if the king liked you and you agreed to only print works that made him look good, you could get permission to own and operate a printing press, thus gaining a right to copy. That's where the name of copyright comes from, but that has changed outside of a handful of totalitarian regimes.
If that were true, then absent that right, nobody could make copies of anything. Again, you are several centuries behind. One thing you can do is agree to not exclude someone else, provided they meet certain conditions. However, not exercising a negative right is not a positive right.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, when it comes to what is standard in HTML video, it is DRM free because there is no DRM implementation of video in HTML. That some form of DRM is common in video doesn't make it a standard, especially since it isn't standardized. I think it's also worth noting that a substantial amount of video traffic is illegal downloading and streaming, so its worth taking in mind as to what is standard.
A DRM standard would necessitate that it can't be successfully performed by any party on any device. Open interoperation is not a possibiilty If it's an open DRM, and the DRM itself is part of the standard, then its not going to be even slightly effective DRM. As it stands, the DRM itself is likely going to be a proprietary add-on if not multiple, competing proprietary add-ons, so there's no purpose of having it be part of HTML. Other elements won't be able to freely interact with it, or else it could be circumvented with simple javascript.
Fortunately, bits don't care about the law, so legally watching a movie and illegally watching the movie can utilize the same process.
It's fully capable of playing the video and probably utilizing whatever underlying encryption is being used. There are no new capabilities for the end user.
It has prevented copying. What is hasn't done is prevent the proliferation of illegal copies in any substantial way, and it has also meant that legitimate users have been pushed into picking up 'pirate' copies just to avoid the inconveniences needed for their own legal usage. This often leads to reduced sales and habits towards going for the illegal copy in the first place. When the DRM is broken once, infinite infringing copies can be made, and with the internet, they are often more easily accessible that legitimate sources.
You are right, they shouldn't be motivated by politics, such as asshats like yourself insisting that we should compromise the goals of the W3C for being able to watch movies. It serves no technical goal and has no useful purpose, therefore their efforts would be better spent on absolutely anything else.
No, it doesn't. You can watch video on the web just fine without DRM.
Actually, there is. the tag works with DRM free files and formats just fine. Movies can be put into those formats and hosted on the same servers as the web pages. What's being excluded is the legal access to that media via major websites. That's a legal problem, not a technological one, so the solution would be a legal answer, not a technological one.
It would be quite wonderful, as we'd have a much better signal to noise ratio in the political system. However, while I understand that some people are always going to be gullible, you have to draw the line somewhere. If you cater your standards to the lowest common denominator, all that will happen is that we'll engineer a better moron that requires even lower standards.
You sure about that? We don't have much evidence from this article alone of the kinds of posts made. However, judging from most fake accounts of public figures on facebook, its probably pretty clearly fake.
Just because TFS says the posts were diplomatically damaging doesn't make it the truth. It's most likely satire/parody that got under his skin because it had too much truth to it.
Maybe I missed it, but all I saw were mentions of "pretty lame" comments about politicians within his own country. The posts were probably childish, asinine, and in no plausible way causing confusion for anyone remotely competent, and yet, I'd say there's a decent chance this account has been a better influence on Australian and international politics than the real McCoy.
Facebook also probably has decent lawyers who can point out the reason for the law is to stop actual fraudulent impersonation, like trying to get money from people under false pretenses. Outside of that, the first amendment provides good protection, especially if the intent is to parody Nelson.
Originality is highly overrated. I'd rather have an old idea that's good than a new one that's bullshit.
Actually, you can totally sell it under both the GPL and BSDL. GNU has a page just about that and any software that you can't legally sell is not free software by the FSF's standards. What you can't do is restrict downstream users from modifying or reselling it. There's also the requirement of making source code available to those who you distribute to and attribution, the latter of which BSDL requires as well.
Now, from a practical standpoint, you might have limited success trying to sell something without a government backed monopoly on it, but that's not because the GPL or BSDL is forcing you to not sell, that's normal market forces in action. You are not having success because you can't force others from competing with you, which puts you in the same boat as all other businesses.
Actually, free software was the older term, and the definitions of 'open source' and 'free software' are almost entirely identical. There aren't many licenses that meet the definition of one but not the other, and they aren't very widespread. All of the licenses that showed up on the chart are both free software and open source. I'm tired of the unbacked idiocy that free software means copyleft.
Mailng money has a number of problems, especially internationally It also requires a steady physical address or a consistent means of finding out one's address.. For all practical purposes, if you are going to send money to wikileaks, you would have to do it through a large company that will be easily intimidated by a government agency.
The trivial creation of multiple wallets can make it easier for both Wikileaks and those sending them money to obfuscate their trail. They could reasonably set up a different wallet for every single transaction.
"GPL is viral"
check.
"intellectual property"
check.
Go to bed, Ballmer, you've got a long day of throwing chairs ahead of you.
Didn't this exact same information get posted a while ago, and then a few days later we got a rebuttal from a different source? The difference is in how you slice it. This article is using the number of projects. If you go by lines of code, I seem to recall it being quite different, and if you went by number of commits, it'd probably be very different as well. Trends in software licensing are not accurately represented by sound bites, and very few studies on the matter seem to be doing anything remotely comprehensive on it. The headline might as well be, "A lot of small projects have no or ambiguous licensing, and the relative growth of different licenses is too complex to trivially measure." However, that's not clickbait because its boring and more or less common sense.
There are plenty of other reasons to prefer alternative currencies, such as being censorship resistant. There's also the potential for greater privacy.
It is a currency. It is something that has a perceived value and is used for trade. In prison, cigarettes are a currency. In some places, guns are a currency.
Actually, if the DMV shut down and all licenses were invalid, but no other legal changes occurred that would still be separate from the requirement of a license to drive. Roads could still be used by vehicles that don't need a license, and vehicles that do could still use strictly private roads in most jurisdictions, but automobiles would not be able to be used on public roads.
Your analogy is poor, and I think the root of the problem is your gross misconception of copyright. Copyright is an exception to the norm of freely copying. In the grand scheme of tings, even our obscene copyright lengths are minuscule compared to the amount of time they will be in the public domain.
Absent copyright, you can copy whatever the hell you want. If Congress decided that today, the grand experiment of copyright was a failure and they were done with it, then anybody would be able to copy anything freely. WIthout copyright, there are no copyrighted works, and you can still copy a copyrighted work under a number of exceptions.
However, a few centuries ago, the story was very different. Copyright DID convey a positive right. As a general rule, ownership and use of a printing press was illegal. However, if the king liked you and you agreed to only print works that made him look good, you could get permission to own and operate a printing press, thus gaining a right to copy. That's where the name of copyright comes from, but that has changed outside of a handful of totalitarian regimes.
Unfortunately, the Treaty of Algeron prohibits the Federation from researching certain technology, including cloaking devices and fuses.
If that were true, then absent that right, nobody could make copies of anything. Again, you are several centuries behind. One thing you can do is agree to not exclude someone else, provided they meet certain conditions. However, not exercising a negative right is not a positive right.