For the "someone nuked all my files", this is why you should backup your files (or use a Cloud service with integrated backup/history or better use both).
Remember, a proper Backup uses MULTIPLE Backups and not all from the same service provider.
PS: for the "someone saw all by financial records", you should use an encrypted Cloud service where YOU own the encryption key and where the service provider can NOT help you should you ever lose that key.
"But what would we sacrificing in openness and the web as we know it?"
Let's recap. The proposal for opened and standardized DRM method in HTML is just a bunch of callback and methods so a media content can say it has a protection and then the web browser can look up in its plugin repository if a DRM plugin can decrypt the content. The HTML part is 100% open and standardized. The actual DRM encryption and keys are not. Which is the point of any DRM scheme.
So adding DRM support into HTML, as media play/pause/method already did, won't make the Web more closed or more proprietary. The opposite is true. Currently, media owner that choose to use protection for their content must rely on proprietary technologies. With a standard DRM framework (ie for distributing and handling protected content, not the part of decrypting it), at least, we could have much more openness on this kind of content.
Now, adding DRM to HTML does NOT change the web. Should an actor decide to use those DRMs features, you are totally free to NOT use their services. But the thing for sure is that we will have much more actors ready to use standard and open functionality to distribute their content in a protected way.
Yeah yeah, it "happened" to him 3 times and his driving license was cancelled since 2004 over speeding tickets. But sure, this is the car manufacturer fault if your modified car (gas and brake operated from the steering wheel) has a strange behavior.
Death penalty is wrong in any occasion. Renting a movie for 48h is perfectly ok.
So having a standard mechanism for browser to be notified that the content is protected and requires a key it can request to an license server and then pass back the obtained key to a decryption module that would enforce the content protection is 100% legitimate.
The REAL problem with DRM is not that they exists: they are perfectly legitimate in a society where we accept that people could own things privately. The real prob is their abuse, enforcement of stupid things and sloppy implementation. I don't care if my DVD or my BluRay is encrypted. However, I do care if it prevents me from skipping the stupid FBI warning or the upcoming-movies-i-don-t-care trailers. DRMs are a pain in the ass and 100% inefficient for things you own permanently.
However, DRM are an efficient way to support renting content for 2 simples reasons: * renting being a one shot act, I can easily see another company to rent my next movie if the experience is subpar. So there is a huge incentive for the company to provide a great experience. * rented media do expire. So a company can update its DRM scheme to improve user experience without breaking compatibility with content already sold.
Nothing. But you can't actually do anything with this key.
The key is generated by a license server and used by a decryption module. The decryption module is in charge of validating the key and decrypting the media. Even if you grab the key (trivial as you said), you still need the decryption module to accept it.
So, it is up to the decryption module (a plugin to the browser) to have a correct security scheme to avoid reusing this key outside its intended use. The best use case would be to have a key containing a date range for its validity (for example, 48h validity for VoD, a week or a month for a weekly/monthly SVoD) and maybe content id (for a single movie VoD), the whole key signed with a private key from the license server and the public in the decryption module.
So for a 48h VoD, it is not an issue if you grab the key because the DRM implementer is aware of that and should be able to work its DRM scheme to support it.
The proposal is to extend HTMLMediaElement (which is an ALREADY existing part of HTML) so it supports DRM in a standard way. HTMLMediaElement is a specific DOM element that correspond to media elements (audio, video) and extends the standard element with media specific features: play, pause, length, volume, etc...
The proposal is to recognize that DRMs are an widespread feature used in conjunction with media elements. As such, it is worth standardizing.
If the DOM accepts having play/pause features on a media element, it could also support DRM methods on a specialization of this element.
As you said, the implementation and enforcement of DRM is EXTERNAL to the DOM/HTML. Have you read the proposal ? I guess you didn't because the ONLY thing this proposal adds is a bunch of events and methods to allow javascript to provide the key to decrypt an encrypted flow.
Jailbreak = breaking the OS protection to perform operations not sanctionned by the phone manufacturer/integrator Unlocking = breaking the radio layer protection to use the phone with another carrier
Both are "breaking" which is a concern for the DMCA but both had "waiver" as part of the DMCA. Now, the later does not have a waiver any more.
Your phone is locked when you get it at a reduced price in exchange for exclusivly using it with the carrier that sold it to you. It is locked to its network. Unlocking a phone yourself was breaking the promise you personnaly made to the carrier. If you are not fine with having your phone locked, you can either buy it unlocked but for a bigger price, or ask the carrier to unlock it, usually free after a (long) time or for a fee.
So if the nurse is not okay with the flu shots, she has the choice to go elsewhere for another kind of job. While when a patient arrives in a hospital, he should not have to choose an establishment which respects the minimal sanitary practices.
Much more versatile than an TV console (drawing, reading, map, educational games, movies) and you could get tons of simple games/apps for only a few bucks each. And you can use it in the car for long travels.
And it does not "compete" with the PS3 for which you could still get games.
When the wind is not blowing, either you need to activate a CO2 generating natural gas power plant (with increasing price of natural gas) or import from other countries that would gladly charge you top money for this energy you need and can't produce.
Wind power is the best thing ever happened to Gas powerstations manufacturers. For every wind farm, you need a gas powerstation of the same size to compensate when the wind is not blowing.
So, over one year, wind power rejects more CO2 than a nuclear plant of same capacity.
"it still relies on imports for its natural gas needs"
There is a limited supply of natural gas (I'm not talking about stocks and how long we could sustain on reserves of natural gas but on the limited bandwidth of existing and soon to be activated pipelines).
Natural gas is used for 2 usages in Europe: electricy production and home heating. Germany is currently at the end of majors pipelines coming from Russia, the largery biggest provider of natural gas to Europe. So Germany can prioritized its own usages of natural gas for electricity production. In competition with households from all accross Europe using natural gas for heating who will see the price of natural gas rise.
So the decision to switch to natural gas for its electricity production, Germany impacts the expenses of households of all Europe.
PS: disclaimer: I'm from Europe, I'm not German and I use natural gas for heating.
On the other side, you can find people moking Apple because their Lightning/USB cable (currently) only support USB2.0 and not USB3.0. However, USB2.0 is MUUUUUUUUUUUCH faster than LTE or WiFi n.
So, you can't go all wireless until wireless has leaped the bandwidth of wired connections.
There are 3 issues here: * who collected them ? (most probably an app) * who "lost" them ? (AntiSec claim they found it on a FBI agent laptop they compromised) * how the data went from #1 to #2 ?
However, in the current acquisition process, Motorola can take no action without the explicit consent of Google, especially for legal actions (suing or granting licenses) because those actions would be binding to Google after the acquisition.
Apple was forced by EU to be more forthcoming about warranty policies.
Apple provided warranty, as a MANUFACTURER, is limited to 1 year and Apple pushed it warranty extension for 2 to 3 years (2 years for iOS devices, 3 years for Macs). It covers a range of issues that can appear after the sell.
EU wasn't really happy with this because EU law mandates a 2 years warranty by the SELLER, for issue existing before the sell. EU thought that Apple was forcing clients to get a warranty extension even if they were entitled to a 2 year coverage (similar but not exactly identical).
Now Apple clearly states this distinction.
So if you bought your Apple product in another shop, after 1 year, you need to get in contact with that shop, that will contact Apple to identify the issue and see if this is linked to a preexisting problem or link to your usage. In the later case, your "seller provided" warranty won't help you.
This is a law-project tailored specifically to address the crazy killer that shot 7 people recently in France.
The presidential election is less than 1 month away and no more laws would be discussed or voted in the mean time. So this law would never pass.
The killer was under scrutiny since his return from Afghanistan. Since he hasn't done anything in France, he could be arrested and jailed. They weren't able to detect any suspicious behavior like planning to plant a bomb which is the most common terrorist act in Europe. We have very few gun-related deaths compared to the US, so such a killing spree is very unusual. This is the most obvious reason his planning went undetected.
The point of this stupid law is to give an excuse for the Police to arrest and jail anyone with a slight hint of suspect behavior, before they might be planning to commit actual crime.
For a customer, the best part of "unlimited" is not about being about to download petabytes of data. The great part is about being able to download whatever he wants without worrying if he will be billed pricey overcharge fees for this.
He knows in advanced what he will pay every month, even if this is more than what he would have paid with a lower plan with overcharge fees.
When a patent is part of standard, you can not use it to block people. You can only use it to get license from them.
If you proposed a "Fair, Raisonnable And Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND) licence scheme and this was rejected THEN you could ask for the licence to be imposed on the infringer or the products to be banned. If you don't do propose a FRAND licence, it means that you did not respect your engagement made to the Standard Setting Organization and you lose your hability to enforce your patent.
Apple here complains that: - Samsung and MMI never proposed licenses at all - Samsung and MMI are trying to get Apple products blocked while with such patents the only thing you could get are forced licenses and not product blocking
The Nokia vs Apple was a good example where the distinct between FRAND and non-FRAND patent was clearly made and the corresponding requests were relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
For the "someone nuked all my files", this is why you should backup your files (or use a Cloud service with integrated backup/history or better use both).
Remember, a proper Backup uses MULTIPLE Backups and not all from the same service provider.
PS: for the "someone saw all by financial records", you should use an encrypted Cloud service where YOU own the encryption key and where the service provider can NOT help you should you ever lose that key.
"But what would we sacrificing in openness and the web as we know it?"
Let's recap. The proposal for opened and standardized DRM method in HTML is just a bunch of callback and methods so a media content can say it has a protection and then the web browser can look up in its plugin repository if a DRM plugin can decrypt the content. The HTML part is 100% open and standardized. The actual DRM encryption and keys are not. Which is the point of any DRM scheme.
So adding DRM support into HTML, as media play/pause/method already did, won't make the Web more closed or more proprietary. The opposite is true.
Currently, media owner that choose to use protection for their content must rely on proprietary technologies. With a standard DRM framework (ie for distributing and handling protected content, not the part of decrypting it), at least, we could have much more openness on this kind of content.
Now, adding DRM to HTML does NOT change the web. Should an actor decide to use those DRMs features, you are totally free to NOT use their services. But the thing for sure is that we will have much more actors ready to use standard and open functionality to distribute their content in a protected way.
Oversized super market. Very common in France.
Yeah yeah, it "happened" to him 3 times and his driving license was cancelled since 2004 over speeding tickets. But sure, this is the car manufacturer fault if your modified car (gas and brake operated from the steering wheel) has a strange behavior.
Death penalty is wrong in any occasion.
Renting a movie for 48h is perfectly ok.
So having a standard mechanism for browser to be notified that the content is protected and requires a key it can request to an license server and then pass back the obtained key to a decryption module that would enforce the content protection is 100% legitimate.
The REAL problem with DRM is not that they exists: they are perfectly legitimate in a society where we accept that people could own things privately. The real prob is their abuse, enforcement of stupid things and sloppy implementation. I don't care if my DVD or my BluRay is encrypted. However, I do care if it prevents me from skipping the stupid FBI warning or the upcoming-movies-i-don-t-care trailers. DRMs are a pain in the ass and 100% inefficient for things you own permanently.
However, DRM are an efficient way to support renting content for 2 simples reasons:
* renting being a one shot act, I can easily see another company to rent my next movie if the experience is subpar. So there is a huge incentive for the company to provide a great experience.
* rented media do expire. So a company can update its DRM scheme to improve user experience without breaking compatibility with content already sold.
Nothing. But you can't actually do anything with this key.
The key is generated by a license server and used by a decryption module. The decryption module is in charge of validating the key and decrypting the media.
Even if you grab the key (trivial as you said), you still need the decryption module to accept it.
So, it is up to the decryption module (a plugin to the browser) to have a correct security scheme to avoid reusing this key outside its intended use. The best use case would be to have a key containing a date range for its validity (for example, 48h validity for VoD, a week or a month for a weekly/monthly SVoD) and maybe content id (for a single movie VoD), the whole key signed with a private key from the license server and the public in the decryption module.
So for a 48h VoD, it is not an issue if you grab the key because the DRM implementer is aware of that and should be able to work its DRM scheme to support it.
The proposal is to extend HTMLMediaElement (which is an ALREADY existing part of HTML) so it supports DRM in a standard way. ...
HTMLMediaElement is a specific DOM element that correspond to media elements (audio, video) and extends the standard element with media specific features: play, pause, length, volume, etc
The proposal is to recognize that DRMs are an widespread feature used in conjunction with media elements. As such, it is worth standardizing.
If the DOM accepts having play/pause features on a media element, it could also support DRM methods on a specialization of this element.
As you said, the implementation and enforcement of DRM is EXTERNAL to the DOM/HTML. Have you read the proposal ? I guess you didn't because the ONLY thing this proposal adds is a bunch of events and methods to allow javascript to provide the key to decrypt an encrypted flow.
Jailbreak = breaking the OS protection to perform operations not sanctionned by the phone manufacturer/integrator
Unlocking = breaking the radio layer protection to use the phone with another carrier
Both are "breaking" which is a concern for the DMCA but both had "waiver" as part of the DMCA. Now, the later does not have a waiver any more.
Your phone is locked when you get it at a reduced price in exchange for exclusivly using it with the carrier that sold it to you. It is locked to its network. Unlocking a phone yourself was breaking the promise you personnaly made to the carrier. If you are not fine with having your phone locked, you can either buy it unlocked but for a bigger price, or ask the carrier to unlock it, usually free after a (long) time or for a fee.
So if the nurse is not okay with the flu shots, she has the choice to go elsewhere for another kind of job.
While when a patient arrives in a hospital, he should not have to choose an establishment which respects the minimal sanitary practices.
Much more versatile than an TV console (drawing, reading, map, educational games, movies) and you could get tons of simple games/apps for only a few bucks each.
And you can use it in the car for long travels.
And it does not "compete" with the PS3 for which you could still get games.
France: 0.12 Euro per kWh.
When the wind is not blowing, either you need to activate a CO2 generating natural gas power plant (with increasing price of natural gas) or import from other countries that would gladly charge you top money for this energy you need and can't produce.
Wind power is the best thing ever happened to Gas powerstations manufacturers.
For every wind farm, you need a gas powerstation of the same size to compensate when the wind is not blowing.
So, over one year, wind power rejects more CO2 than a nuclear plant of same capacity.
"it still relies on imports for its natural gas needs"
There is a limited supply of natural gas (I'm not talking about stocks and how long we could sustain on reserves of natural gas but on the limited bandwidth of existing and soon to be activated pipelines).
Natural gas is used for 2 usages in Europe: electricy production and home heating.
Germany is currently at the end of majors pipelines coming from Russia, the largery biggest provider of natural gas to Europe. So Germany can prioritized its own usages of natural gas for electricity production. In competition with households from all accross Europe using natural gas for heating who will see the price of natural gas rise.
So the decision to switch to natural gas for its electricity production, Germany impacts the expenses of households of all Europe.
PS: disclaimer: I'm from Europe, I'm not German and I use natural gas for heating.
On the other side, you can find people moking Apple because their Lightning/USB cable (currently) only support USB2.0 and not USB3.0.
However, USB2.0 is MUUUUUUUUUUUCH faster than LTE or WiFi n.
So, you can't go all wireless until wireless has leaped the bandwidth of wired connections.
Yeah, downloading a 80MB file linked directly from slashdot will go smoothly.
There are 3 issues here:
* who collected them ? (most probably an app)
* who "lost" them ? (AntiSec claim they found it on a FBI agent laptop they compromised)
* how the data went from #1 to #2 ?
And the 3rd one is the most interesting.
However, in the current acquisition process, Motorola can take no action without the explicit consent of Google, especially for legal actions (suing or granting licenses) because those actions would be binding to Google after the acquisition.
Those are not software patents. WiFi and H.264 are not software.
Apple was forced by EU to be more forthcoming about warranty policies.
Apple provided warranty, as a MANUFACTURER, is limited to 1 year and Apple pushed it warranty extension for 2 to 3 years (2 years for iOS devices, 3 years for Macs). It covers a range of issues that can appear after the sell.
EU wasn't really happy with this because EU law mandates a 2 years warranty by the SELLER, for issue existing before the sell. EU thought that Apple was forcing clients to get a warranty extension even if they were entitled to a 2 year coverage (similar but not exactly identical).
Now Apple clearly states this distinction.
So if you bought your Apple product in another shop, after 1 year, you need to get in contact with that shop, that will contact Apple to identify the issue and see if this is linked to a preexisting problem or link to your usage. In the later case, your "seller provided" warranty won't help you.
This is a law-project tailored specifically to address the crazy killer that shot 7 people recently in France.
The presidential election is less than 1 month away and no more laws would be discussed or voted in the mean time. So this law would never pass.
The killer was under scrutiny since his return from Afghanistan. Since he hasn't done anything in France, he could be arrested and jailed. They weren't able to detect any suspicious behavior like planning to plant a bomb which is the most common terrorist act in Europe. We have very few gun-related deaths compared to the US, so such a killing spree is very unusual. This is the most obvious reason his planning went undetected.
The point of this stupid law is to give an excuse for the Police to arrest and jail anyone with a slight hint of suspect behavior, before they might be planning to commit actual crime.
As usual, this is stupid and inefficient.
For a customer, the best part of "unlimited" is not about being about to download petabytes of data.
The great part is about being able to download whatever he wants without worrying if he will be billed pricey overcharge fees for this.
He knows in advanced what he will pay every month, even if this is more than what he would have paid with a lower plan with overcharge fees.
The data usage link points to a screenshot of MONTHLY usage while the "article" speaks about daily usage. Indeed.
A whole month of streaming is 96.3GB.
When a patent is part of standard, you can not use it to block people. You can only use it to get license from them.
If you proposed a "Fair, Raisonnable And Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND) licence scheme and this was rejected THEN you could ask for the licence to be imposed on the infringer or the products to be banned.
If you don't do propose a FRAND licence, it means that you did not respect your engagement made to the Standard Setting Organization and you lose your hability to enforce your patent.
Apple here complains that:
- Samsung and MMI never proposed licenses at all
- Samsung and MMI are trying to get Apple products blocked while with such patents the only thing you could get are forced licenses and not product blocking
The Nokia vs Apple was a good example where the distinct between FRAND and non-FRAND patent was clearly made and the corresponding requests were relevant.