undefined | Better HN

0 pointswdewind12y ago0 comments

1. I don't agree that this is true at all. The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard). I don't agree with copyright law, but it is law. We currently have a web that provides the ability to companies to protect their data via implementation, this simply provides a spec to do it in a different way. It does not fundamentally change the user experience of the web.

2. Yes, like in the United States. Just like receiving stolen goods is a crime. No offense, but when you say things like "If you create a code for "don't read this data" to be sent over the web, disobeying it will become a crime there." I don't think you fully understand how DRM currently works and how it would work using this standard. It is simply a standard people can implement.

Edit: as some of you have pointed out, the phrase "copyright-compliant" is somewhat meaningless. I should've chosen my words more carefully. I meant "copyright-enforcement-enabling."

0 comments

saraid21612y ago

> The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard).

No, what he means is that, if we stop listening to the W3C because of this, the W3C will no longer matter. So either we won't have a standards body, or we will need a new one.

wdewindOP12y ago

And why would we stop listening to the W3C because of this?

gavinlynch12y ago

Exactly. There are countless standards issued by the W3C that are completely ignored by Browser Vendors at large. Yet it's still the most relevant consortium on the matter.

Conversely, there are countless features introduced by Browser Vendors that do not exist in the W3C's specs. (And some of those are even eventually picked up by the W3c.)

I honestly don't think people understand how the Standards Body's work, and how their specs propagate into actual products that people use on a daily basis.

Many companies have cherry-picked what to implement and what not to. This is not new. If anything, it's the norm. Vendors will continue to do this as long as the W3C will exist, and can continue to do so in this case, without destroying the W3C or making it an invalid body.

This particular argument is totally bunk.

jeroen12y ago

It was your own suggestion that spawned this thread.

You wrote:

"I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does not imply that browsers have to adhere to it." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6491428

marcosdumay is responding to that by saying "It matters because ..."

1 more reply

schoen12y ago

There is no sense in which DRM is "copyright-compliant" and a lack of DRM is not "copyright-compliant", and there is no sense in which copyright requires anyone to help industry create or deploy DRM.

wdewindOP12y ago

Yeah that's true. I chose my words poorly.

yk12y ago

DRM can not work. Assuming that you don't come up with a plan, which prevents reading data, while allowing the reading of data. So if the W3C starts to write standards which defy the basis of logic, were are forced to abandon their standards, thus destroying the W3C.

betterunix12y ago

This is not about making a copyright-friendly web. This is about attacking the openness of the web.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

saraid21612y ago

> The W3C is not created to destroy copyright, which seems to be the implication of your statement (ie: we will need a new standards body that does not provide a copyright-compliant standard).

No, what he means is that, if we stop listening to the W3C because of this, the W3C will no longer matter. So either we won't have a standards body, or we will need a new one.

wdewindOP12y ago

And why would we stop listening to the W3C because of this?

gavinlynch12y ago

Exactly. There are countless standards issued by the W3C that are completely ignored by Browser Vendors at large. Yet it's still the most relevant consortium on the matter.

Conversely, there are countless features introduced by Browser Vendors that do not exist in the W3C's specs. (And some of those are even eventually picked up by the W3c.)

I honestly don't think people understand how the Standards Body's work, and how their specs propagate into actual products that people use on a daily basis.

This particular argument is totally bunk.

jeroen12y ago

It was your own suggestion that spawned this thread.

You wrote:

"I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does not imply that browsers have to adhere to it." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6491428

marcosdumay is responding to that by saying "It matters because ..."

1 more reply

schoen12y ago

There is no sense in which DRM is "copyright-compliant" and a lack of DRM is not "copyright-compliant", and there is no sense in which copyright requires anyone to help industry create or deploy DRM.

wdewindOP12y ago

Yeah that's true. I chose my words poorly.

yk12y ago

betterunix12y ago

This is not about making a copyright-friendly web. This is about attacking the openness of the web.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse