–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

“We’ve had DRM in Windows for years. The most common format of music on an iPod is “stolen”.”

–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

“We’ve been very focused on producing a DRM system. [...] We think DRM is important”

–Robbie Bach, Microsoft President

“DRM is nearly always the result of a conspiracy of companies to restrict the technology available to the public. Such conspiracy should be a crime, and the executives responsible for it should be sentenced to prison.”

–Richard Stallman

Summary: What Microsoft et al. call ‘Next-Generation Open Media Formats’ are basically neither open nor acceptable (it’s DRM) and what Microsoft apologists dub ‘Open Source Tools’ are just another example of a Microsoft Office openwashing Trojan horse

“Alliance for Open Media” is the latest Orwellian name/title for that which casts DRM collusion as “open”. Typical DRM proponents are part of it (Microsoft included) and so is Mozilla, which joined the DRM cartel about a year ago, causing much anger among many of its strongest supporters. DRM is not “open”. It’s not even compatible with the notion of “open” as this strictly requires proprietary software. Mozilla gave up on “openness” when it entered the DRM conspiracy and now we have the press littered by lots of puff pieces that frame DRM as “open” (however they define open, maybe alluding to patents). These are manufactured false perceptions and spin, calling a DRM conspiracy “Next-Gen Video Format” [1, 2, 3]. Here is the press release. It’s hogwash.

It is sad to see the Open Web falling over like this, after the MPAA essentially bribed the World Wide Web Consortium, which had hired a fool from Novell (we wrote a lot about this in prior years). These people are trying to set up ‘standards’ with patents on them and DRM as part of the (secret) ‘standard’. When it comes to what they define to be “open”, it’s just about patents. When a bunch of companies agree not to sue each other (like OIN, which has just added WSO2, but proved rather fruitless when one member, Oracle, sued another, Google). “In joining OIN, an organization dedicated to defending the Linux ecosystem, WSO2 extends its commitment to fostering innovation through open source software,” says the summary from the new press release. That’s nothing to do with innovation. It’s nothing to do with FOSS, either. Many members are proprietary software companies just agreeing on patents being pooled together. Many of these patents pertain to sofwtare and are therefore inherently incompatible with FOSS. Therein lies the core of the latest spin, misleadingly named “Alliance for Open Media”. It’s not a standard but a collusion. That’s what it is. It is, at best, a patent pool.

In other news, we have just come across some truly bizarre openwashing of Microsoft Office. Sam Dean is once again doing a service to his apparent new hero, Satya Nadella. Under a rather misleading headline Dean describes something which facilitates proprietary software as “Open Source”. But it’s not open source, it’s bait for OOXML and proprietary software. Watch the article starting with nonsensical claims:

Has Microsoft finally, truly warmed up to open source? New CEO Satya Nadella (shown) is definitely pushing that notion. Several media outlets previously reported on his comments on how he “loves Linux” and he has claimed that approximately 30 percent of Microsoft’s Azure cloud is already Linux-based.

Any GNU/Linux instance running under Microsoft’s control is already compromised, with back doors included. It’s basically dependent on proprietary software from a company which notoriously colludes with the NSA.

Talk about distorting the notion of “openness”…

Those who can successfully ‘sell’ the corruptible media OOXML, Office and DRM as “open” can probably also ‘sell’ it genocidal carpet-bombing as “spreading freedom and democracy”, or disabled people as “special people”. █

“[Vista DRM] seems a bit like breaking the legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can hobble on crutches.“

–Peter Gutmann

SEVERAL days ago interesting reports surfaced about Microsoft remotely bricking people’s consoles, not just Microsoft having the capability to do so. “It turns out,” says one article, “that Microsoft not only has the power to ban you from Xbox Live permanently, but it can also turn your Xbox One console in to a useless brick, as the beta testers behind the Gears of War Remastered leak have found out.”

The lesson is clear; Microsoft claims ownership of what people buy (consoles), sabotages their consoles. Xbox One is not only an Orwellian surveillance device as we have explained before; it also has the capability to self-destruct at Microsoft’s orders. This isn’t going to be good for business. Microsoft has already lost a lot in this business. █

Summary: Where two evils collide the public benefits, or how some software patents discourage the use of DRM

SOFTWARE patents are a horrible thing because in a world where almost everything is now controlled by computers with general-purpose or specialised software nearly every action/process can potentially become a monopoly, or a milking cow of someone (usually a large corporation) who had little to do with invention, just opportunism. It puts tremendous pressure on ‘small’ software developers and offers protectionism to software conglomerates such as IBM. Software patents are in injustice for many reasons including their undeniable impediment to innovation, which makes them the antithesis of patents (where publication in exchange for temporary monopoly was supposed to encourage dissemination of knowledge and thus innovation). Abstract ideas rather than utility were never supposed to be patentable. Likewise, copyright law has been extended to cover all sort of ridiculous things (like a story/plot, based on vague similarities, APIs, etc.) even to the point of encouraging no innovation or creativity (e.g. lasting well beyond the death of the original creator). The latter is often enforced upon the public using some ugly software hacks like DRM (turning computers against their users), so the relationship is deep and inherent.

“So here we have two evils fighting against one another. “It is rather ironic when software patents do something good by discouraging the use of DRM as DRM itself becomes a patent monopoly. Such was the case in this legal case. “Between the company’s general disposition and the incredible failure of the SimCity launch,” says an article, “Electronic Arts is becoming a name associated directly with digital rights management. The most infamous DRM platform the company has used is probably SecuROM, which was noteworthy for being equal parts mega-annoying to paying customers, as well as being so massively ineffective that games employing SecuROM later became amongst the most pirated video games of all time. But, results aside, EA would tell you that it needed to use DRM to protect the company from piracy. Even if SecuROM failed, the company had to at least try, or else the freeloaders that live the highlife getting around intellectual property laws would win. Violating IP laws is wrong, damn it, and EA was going to do everything in its power to right that wrong.”

So here we have two evils fighting against one another. It is not easy to pick a side. On the one hand we have monopolies on software and on the other we have monopolies on access to data. Both are detrimental to the common good. █

Summary: Steve Jobs recalled for his reasonably hostile track record of megalomaniac tendencies

ONE of our readers sent us some interesting reports about Steve Jobs’ rudeness [1], determination to attack Android/Linux with patents [2], and a lawsuit [3] over DRM [4] where Steve Jobs’ ghost is back to haunt digital freedom.

“He also started a wave of patent abuses, ranging from threats (like those veiled threats against Palm) to lawsuits that would last several years and drain budgets, remove features, etc.”Over the years we have criticised Steve Jobs (before and after his death) because his contribution to DRM — contrary to what Apple fans care to admit — has been great. He also started a wave of patent abuses, ranging from threats (like those veiled threats against Palm) to lawsuits that would last several years and drain budgets, remove features, etc. So much for innovation, eh?

We continue to reject the notion that just because someone is dead it should be impossible to criticise him or her, especially if that person is a public figure (like a politician). Sadly, however, some people disagree and want to treat any criticism of Jobs like blasphemy or “speaking ill of the dead” (inducing censorship). As the reports below serve to show, Jobs does not deserve to be treated as though he was a hero, except perhaps by those who cherish corporate control over people, using digital means (that’s why the corporate press loves to idolise Jobs so much). █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. 10 best Steve Jobs emails

   Emails sent by Jobs have surfaced once again in a class action lawsuit brought against Apple (AAPL, Tech30) for making iTunes the exclusive store for iPod music. Jobs’ emails are characteristically frank, which could hurt Apple.

   Jobs’ famous candor wasn’t limited to face-to-face encounters. His brusque manner translated to email as well. That’s unusual for modern CEOs, who are trained to exercise restraint in emails. Those words can easily be entered as evidence in a trial.

   Either Jobs didn’t get that message — or he didn’t care. These 10 emails from Apple’s co-founder reveal the stern, outspoken and often witty personality that made him one of the most charismatic CEOs of his era.

2. Why Steve Jobs Went ‘Thermonuclear’ Over Android

   Anyone who follows the smartphone and tablet market knows that Android has become the No. 1 mobile operating system in the world. They also know that, prior to his death in 2011, Steve Jobs was not very happy about Google’s mobile operating system. In fact, he made a rather bold threat when he talked about his dislike of this competing mobile OS.

   “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this,” the late CEO famously said.

3. Star Witness in Apple Lawsuit Is Still Steve Jobs

4. Was Apple’s iPod DRM illegal? Starting today, a jury decides

   This morning, Apple will begin a duel over claims that it used copy-protection schemes known as “digital rights management,” or DRM, to illegally manipulate the market for iPods. The lawsuit, filed nearly 10 years ago, puts some legal firepower behind activists’ claims that the copy-protection DRM is “defective by design.”

Summary: Putting DRM on GNU/Linux, and especially DRM that Microsoft controls, is a very bad idea

Microsoft tried to break the Web with Silverlight, turning the Web into a bunch of binaries or cryptic blobs that will be run by proprietary software on the user’s computer/client’s end (probably not spiders, except for Microsoft’s). It is worse than Flash and more like DRM, which Silverlight was used to promote. When Silverlight died its key proponent Netflix had to go infect HTML. This is even worse because it means that the Web itself starts requiring proprietary blobs. One site said this is “Good news for folks tired of installing Microsoft Silverlight just so they can stream videos from Netflix: The company now has an HTML5 media player which works without any plugins.

“Here’s the bad news (for now): While Netflix is rolling out its HTML5 player to another platform, you still have to jump through some hoops to install Silverlight if you want to watch Netflix on a computer running GNU/Linux.”

Well, this is about DRM in HTML, which is even worse and has put Mozilla to shame. Mozilla also got a little close to Mono, which does not invite much support.

Now, using the Mono-based Moonlight one could almost get this DRM going, but it helped Microsoft get a foothold on the Web. One project remains which still tries to achieve this. It received coverage in some FOSS sites, which is unfortunate. One site said: “Pipelight is a wrapper for Windows NPAPI plugins such as Silverlight, Widevine or Flash (the Windows version) which allows you to use these plugins in native Linux web browsers and thus, use services that aren’t officially supported on Linux, such as Netflix (Silverlight), HBO Go (Widevine) and so on.”

Another bit of coverage said:

Pipelight is the interesting open-source project to support Windows browser plug-ins within native Linux browsers. Pipelight serves as a wrapper for Windows plug-ins in Linux browsers using Wine and for browsers supporting NPAPI plug-ins. This software, which allows Silverlight and Netflix to work on Linux, is out with a big update.

This is about DRM and it should be rejected or worked around by breaking DRM, not by bringing DRM to GNU and Linux.

The fight here is not just against Microsoft but against DRM. What Pipeline does helps create the perception that GNU/Linux is now compatible with DRM. Some copyright maximalists can use that to impose DRM everywhere. A Slackware-oriented site, writing about a similar issue, noted that support is lacking, so it really is only the illusion of compatibility.

The version 35 of Chromium has a major side effect that many people are not going to like. The support for browser plugins that use Mozilla’s NPAPI protocol to communicate with the browser has been removed and only Google’s own PPAPI protocol is supported as of now (MS Windows users still have a bit of time before the same happens to their Chrome browser – removal of NPAPI support in Windows is scheduled for the end of 2014). This step was of course announced long time ago and many reminders were posted, but if you need Java support in your browser, or want to watch Netflix using pipelight, then you are out of luck. PPAPI versions for these browser plugins do not exist and in the case of pipelight, are very hard to create.

Anything that requires running a blob for access to data/information should be rejected, especially on the Web. We are entering a dangerous era where FOSS become fundamentally incompatible with data. Unless of course we fight back… █

Summary: A look at Brendan Eich’s musings from some months ago reveals hostility, as a matter of principle, towards DRM and some other items which suggest turf wars might be going on inside Mozilla

This sure is fascinating. Following the widely-chastised decision to embrace DRM it turns out that Eich was against the decision. We congratulated him for being a FOSS proponent who can end Mono dependence back when he was first appointed CEO and even before that. Remember that the patron of Firefox, Mozilla, was quick to embrace Ogg (we love Ogg), but later disappointed many of us by liaising with MPEG-LA (essentially stomping on the whole policy of supporting Ogg at the core). There certainly seems to be a turf war inside Mozilla. This is probably why Eich got ejected (through intense pressure on him).

With DRM and MPEG, Mozilla Firefox is no longer a FOSS browser. According to this one new blog post, DRM was why Brendan Eich had to go. “Eich stood firmly in the way of Mozilla incorporating DRM into Firefox,” says the source. Eich is a FOSS supporter, so this makes sense. Without him, Firefox can become FOSS only in the Chrome sense (FOSS with many blobs on top). Here is what Eich wrote in his site: “I continue to collaborate with others, including some in Hollywood, on watermarking, not DRM.”

He also said “DRM is about gaining leverage over “playback devices” and ultimately “users” in order to jack prices a bit” (source). To quote another take on it:

Eich stood firmly in the way of Mozilla incorporating DRM into Firefox. Now that he’s gone, and his technological authority with him, Mozilla immediately caved to Hollywood interests. It’s also interesting to note that the justification for Mozilla making this change is given as fear that users will abandon them. That demonstrates that the campaign to #uninstallfirefox was based on a sound principle, even if it was not quite as successful as I would have liked it to be.

Well, guess what, Mozilla? The treatment of Eich and promotion of DRM will do huge harm to Firefox and Mozilla. Many people disagreed with a position that Eich held outside his professional field half a decade ago, but those same people strongly disagree with the way some people in Mozilla treated Eich, not to mention the actions taken after his departure. Mozilla seems to be suffering an identity crisis of some kind. █

Mozilla has been trying to sell us a controversial new interface (which many people want to replace [1]) for its flagship product Firefox, changing the controversial plan with ads etc. while it is using a kids-washed marketing campaign and claiming to teach about the Web [2,3]. This is after struggling with a PR disaster (the Eich incident) that distracted from Mono issues. One sure thing is, Mozilla is going through a tough time. This is not a good thing at all because Mozilla has historically been a champion of standards and source code.

Mozilla is seemingly trying to make things worse by ignoring hostile feedback (from months ago) to its DRM plans. DRM and FOSS cannot co-exist, so Mozilla abandoned FOSS instead of rejecting DRM. Mozilla is now contradicting itself. It weakens FOSS as a whole.

Well, Microsoft and DRM boosters make it even worse, trying to bolster the case for DRM using Mozilla. Across the Web there is plenty of anger, including an expression of disappointment at Mozilla’s actions. Prominent DRM foe Cory Doctorow [4] says that this position [5] breaks his heart and Linux-centric sites [6] paint this scenario more properly than most (many journalists don’t really understand these matters). Free software people have condemned Mozilla [7,8], but there is no chance of Mozilla changing course just yet. Two of our readers have said they they would dump Mozilla over this issue (not just Firefox but Mozilla).

Truth be told, the W3C deserves a lot of the blame as well. It has been an utter disgrace in the past couple of years and Tim Berners-Lee let it be so, with Novell’s Jaffe making erroneous decisions that isolate the Web that’s already a surveillance platform of notorious proportions. Most Web browsers in use FOSS code, but the W3C decided to ban FOSS with DRM, promoting proprietary software and hence more surveillance. The W3C deserves much of the flack and it deserves much of the blame for Mozilla’s own actions.

Articles about the fiasco mostly blame Mozilla for this, but some say that it’s not Mozilla’s fault, which is partly true. Sam Dean, who is typically okay with some proprietary software like Mac OSuX, obviously disagrees with Mozilla as he says: “Now, Mozilla–a champion of openness on the web–has teamed up with Adobe to provide a Content Decryption Module (CDM) that effectively hitches its wagon to streaming video DRM (digital rights management) in the Firefox browser after years of eschewing the practice.”

In another article, Dean says that “The FSF isn’t the only organization condemning Mozilla for the move. The Register refers to the decision as an “ankle grab.””

Other sites noted the same alignment in position among “Open source advocates” and some news site wrongly frame this as “bring[ing] Netflix support to Linux with DRM in Firefox” (this is not really what the news should say).

SOFTWARE DEVELOPER MOZILLA has announced the implementation of proprietary HTML5 based digital restrictions management (DRM) in its Firefox web browser, such as that used by media streaming services.

It is much worse than that. It is an assault of Free software, it is not about augmenting support. To save/keep its biggest fanbase Mozilla will need to dump Adobe and abandon DRM immediately. A week ago Asa Dotzler thanked personally me for supporting Mozilla; well, I’m not sure I support Mozilla anymore. I wait for Mozilla to rectify its act. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Firefox 28 theme for Firefox 29 add-on

2. Mozilla Offers Free Training for Teaching Web Skills

3. Mozilla wants to teach you how to teach others about the Web

   Almost two years after launching its Webmaker initiative, Mozilla is launching a new online crash-course to give anyone the skills to teach other people about using and building on the Web.

   It’s called Webmaker Training and features four modules covering the basics of the Internet, how to use Mozilla’s current crop of Webmaker tools, nurturing open learning and engaging with other communities on the Web.

4. Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart

   Future versions of the open-source Firefox browser will include closed-source digital rights management (DRM) from Adobe, the Mozilla project’s chief technology officer, Andreas Gal, announced on Wednesday.

   The purpose is to support commercial video streams. But this is a radical, disheartening development in the history of the organisation, long held out as a beacon for the open, free spirit of the web as a tool for liberation.

   As Gal’s blogpost makes clear, this move was done without much enthusiasm, out of a fear that Firefox (Mozilla’s flagship product and by far the most popular free/open browser in the world) was being sidelined by Apple, Google and Microsoft’s inclusion of proprietary technology to support Netflix and other DRM-encumbered videos in their browsers.

5. Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and W3C EME

   With most competing browsers and the content industry embracing the W3C EME specification, Mozilla has little choice but to implement EME as well so our users can continue to access all content they want to enjoy. Read on for some background on how we got here, and details of our implementation.

6. Mozilla’s Route For Implementing W3C EME (HTML5 DRM)

7. FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

   In response to Mozilla’s announcement that it is reluctantly adopting DRM in its Firefox Web browser, Free Software Foundation executive director John Sullivan made the following statement:

   “Only a week after the International Day Against DRM, Mozilla has announced that it will partner with proprietary software company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) in its Firefox browser, using Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

8. To Serve Users

   In the old science fiction story, To Serve Man (which later was adapted for the The Twilight Zone), aliens come to earth and freely share various technological advances, and offer free visits to the alien world. Eventually, the narrator, who remains skeptical, begins translating one of their books. The title is innocuous, and even well-meaning: To Serve Man. Only too late does the narrator realize that the book isn’t about service to mankind, but rather — a cookbook.

   It’s in the same spirit that Baker seeks to serve Firefox’s users up on a platter to the MPAA, the RIAA, and like-minded wealthy for-profit corporations. Baker’s only defense appears to be that other browser vendors have done the same, and cites specifically for-profit companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

Summary: Those who advocate DRM and proprietary software dislike net neutrality, as demonstrated by Apple’s and Netflix’s opposition to the principle of packet delivery without discrimination

Microsoft has, for a long time in fact, been an opponent of net neutrality, based on its actions (we covered those). No company wants to be seen as anti-net neutrality, so they all pretend to be for it while their actions speak for themselves.

Netflix is clearly against net neutrality based on its actions and a reader sent us this article about Netflix’s CEO, noting that “ISPs are already getting paid for both ends of the connection. What ISPs are trying to get now is paying twice at both ends, that is to say collecting four ways for the same connection.”

The corporate press recently ran the story “Netflix Just Opened the Door to Paying ISPs More Access Fees” [1]. Disregard the spin and PR from the CEO of Netflix [2,3], who is basically claiming that he is against what he is doing. Also ignore the nonsense from AT&T [4] and other cable companies [5]; they just fear client alienation, so they tell to the public (existing or prospective customers) what the public wants to hear while doing exactly the opposite.

Apple, being Apple, is a lot more arrogant and selfish, hardly ever trying to hide its real agenda. Apple not only helps Microsoft [6] but it also helps cable companies kill net neutrality [7,8]. Apple is following the lead of Netflix in this case, ending what we once knew as a network which treats packets equally. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Netflix Just Opened the Door to Paying ISPs More Access Fees

   Netflix (NFLX) Chief Executive Officer Reed Hastings is seeking your help to keep Internet service providers from charging higher fees to stream all the video its customers watch. In the process, he may have just opened his wallet to any Cox, Time Warner Cable (TWC), Verizon Communications (VZ), or AT&T (T) across the nation.

2. Netflix CEO lashes out against ISPs like Comcast that do not follow ‘net neutrality’

3. Netflix CEO Slams US ISPs Over Net Neutrality

   Netflix CEO Reed Hastings says it reluctantly pays US ISPs for interconnection fees, but argues providers shouldn’t be allowed to abuse their position

4. AT&T promises to lower your Internet bill if FCC kills net neutrality

   If the Federal Communications Commission lets Internet service providers charge Web companies like Netflix for faster delivery of content to consumers, AT&T will lower its customers’ Internet bills. That’s what AT&T said Friday in a filing in the FCC’s “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet” proceeding.

5. Level 3 and Cogent ask FCC for protection against ISP “tolls”

   Network operators Level 3 and Cogent Communications today urged the Federal Communications Commission to prevent Internet service providers from charging what they deem to be excessive fees for interconnection.

6. Windows 8 picks up an unlikely ally in Apple

   Windows 8 picks up an unlikely ally in Apple

   Apple is dropping Windows 7 support in Boot Camp — and Mac-based Windows users won’t like the reasons why

7. Apple courts Comcast for net neutrality-evading TV service

   GADGET MAKER Apple and ISP Comcast are planning a joint venture for streaming TV service, in a move that might ramp up the net neutrality debate.

   According to the Wall Street Journal, the companies are in talks to create a service that will provide the Apple TV with a direct connection to a new video on demand (VOD) channel, bypassing internet congestion that could otherwise cause buffering or pixelation to customers.

8. Apple in talks with Comcast for priority services for its set-top box

   We recently reported Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings talk about the essence of net neutrality saying that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast should not restrict, influence, or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. If reports are to be believed, Apple is talking to Comcast to get priority services for its set-top box that will bypass any congestion created by internet traffic.

Summary: Xbox “One” so big a failure — not just a surveillance device — that its chiefs continue to jump ship, leaving Microsoft in disarray

THERE has been an exceptionally major departure of high-level staff inside Microsoft and we mostly covered it years ago (well before Ballmer stepped down). These days we cover additions to this list only when readers send us links such as this one, which says that the Xbox Chief Product Officer is quitting Microsoft and canceling his appearance at GDC. “Infecting wireless Hi-Fi and audio company Sonos now,” says our reader, alluding to a culture of moles such as Elop.

Xbox-related departures are frequent and many. Recent posts noted that Xbox One was failing to sell. It is far behind the competition, which almost doubles it in terms of sales (Sony easily holds the crown).

Why would anyone at all ever buy anything that’s branded “Xbox”? It’s not only burning down houses, killing people inside those houses (due to design flaws in Xbox 360). It’s an abusive piece of DRM in a box. Those who buy Xbox are in essence paying for what we know to be surveillance equipment that spies on the buyer [1, 2, 3] for various governments such as Britain’s. If more people knew what Xbox is really doing, then nobody would be foolish enough to buy it anymore and the whole product line would have to be cancelled, just like Microsoft’s many failed platforms for mobile. █

WHEN Net Neutrality was dying in the US many people wondered why Netflix did almost nothing in response. Well, just like Google, Netflix should not be assumed to be an advocate for Net Neutrality. Both companies, along with Microsoft, promote DRM on the Web. Google pretty much stopped fighting for Net Neutrality several years ago. All Google cared about was itself. If it could make the policies work out for its business model (e.g. not discriminating among users of YouTube), then why should it bother with the interests of the vast majority of the population? The same goes for privacy and the so-called ‘resistance’ NSA faces from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, et al.

According to new reports, Comcast and Netflix sort of collude against Net Neutrality (even though the corporate press will not say it like that). “Comcast,” says the New York Times, “the country’s largest cable and broadband provider, and Netflix, the giant television and movie streaming service, announced an agreement Sunday in which Netflix will pay Comcast for faster and more reliable access to Comcast’s subscribers.”

This is appalling. So Netflix is now actively helping Big Cable/Telecom end Net Neutrality. Suffice to say, the bias from the press of Rupert Murdoch continues shamelessly [1], comparing the situation of Net Neutrality to “Traffic Jam” (right there in the headline) while the Internet’s Net Neutrality is not even mentioned (in the whole article). The corporate press (all of it from New York in this case) is now telling us [2] that Tom Wheeler, the mole inside the FCC, is going to write new rules. Perhaps it’s all about normalising this new status quo. He never really fought for Net Neutrality. The mega-corporations got their way on the Internet (and the Web) yet again. We are losing the battle for free and equal speech. Those in power eliminate it little by little. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. America’s 10-Year Experiment in Broadband Investment Has Failed

   Tom Wheeler, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, announced Wednesday that there would be new rules written to guarantee net neutrality. It’s a good thing any website can reach any person unimpeded by tolls, and it’s good that Wheeler still wants to make this possible. The Internet service providers will first work to dilute the new rules, of course, and then sue to overturn them. Entire legal departments, lobbying outfits, and public-relations firms live for this moment, the beginning of a now-familiar three-year grind with the FCC.

2. Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Traffic Jam

   Deal Ends Standoff Over Streaming, Would Give Netflix Direct Access to Comcast Systems

ONE OF the world’s best known critics of DRM recently explained why the W3C lost credibility with its DRM moves. A week ago he explained [1] (getting applause/hat tip from the original Pirate Party’s founder [2] and TechDirt [3]) why DRM without corruption in politics is a pointless exercise of futility. DRM can, by definition, easily be circumvented, but it’s new laws that ban circumvention that make DRM what it is. It’s criminalisation of copying — even copying of what’s legally copyable. It’s a war on sharing. Apple is a big proponent of this and Microsoft became the biggest facilitator when it dumped Vista (and its predecessors) on this world. We need to fight back against those who are waging a war against our rights.

Sony, another infamous DRM booster (going as far as illegally sabotaging people’s computers with rogue DRM), is still fighting to spread DRM to books/literature [4] and Valve proved itself to be equally guilty (like Sony and Microsoft in consoles) by using the courts to prevent passage of digital data [5] (not even copying, just passage of ‘purchased’ — in reality rented — media). Meanwhile, as we learn from the press, “OEM “Kill-switch” anti theft bill proposed by California State” (criminalising devices with no back doors) [6].

If this is where technology is going, namely the enforcement of back doors and suspension of ability to copy and pass data (disguised as ‘technological solution’ when it’s actually political), then we are seriously destroyed. We are losing power over technology to a bunch of tyrannical technophobic plutocrats. DRM is their weapon of choice and it is one among several. DRM helps censor and divide the population, making everyone exceedingly dependent on copyright ‘masters’. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. What happens with digital rights management in the real world?

   In the real world, “bare” DRM doesn’t really do much. Before governments enacted laws making compromising DRM illegal (even if no copyright infringement took place), DRM didn’t survive contact with the market for long. That’s because technologically, DRM doesn’t make any sense. For DRM to work, you have to send a scrambled message (say, a movie) to your customer, then give your customer a program to unscramble it. Anyone who wants to can become your customer simply by downloading your player or buying your device – “anyone” in this case includes the most skilled technical people in the world. From there, your adversary’s job is to figure out where in the player you’ve hidden the key that is used to unscramble the message (the movie, the ebook, song, etc). Once she does that, she can make her own player that unscrambles your files. And unless it’s illegal to do this, she can sell her app or device, which will be better than yours, because it will do a bunch of things you don’t want it to do: allow your customers to use the media they buy on whatever devices they own, allow them to share the media with friends, to play it in other countries, to sell it on as a used good, and so on.

   The only reason to use DRM is because your customers want to do something and you don’t want them to do it. If someone else can offer your customers a player that does the stuff you hate and they love, they’ll buy it. So your DRM vanishes.

   A good analogue to this is inkjet cartridges. Printer companies make a lot more money when you buy your ink from them, because they can mark it up like crazy (millilitre for millilitre, HP ink costs more than vintage Champagne). So they do a bunch of stuff to stop you from refilling your cartridges and putting them in your printer. Nevertheless, you can easily and legally buy cheap, refilled and third-party cartridges for your printer. Same for phone unlocking: obviously phone companies keep you as a customer longer and make more money if you have to throw away your phone when you change carriers, so they try to lock the phone you buy with your plan to their networks. But phone unlocking is legal in the UK, so practically every newsagent and dry cleaner in my neighbourhood will unlock your phone for a fiver (you can also download free programs from the net to do this if you are willing to trade hassle for money).

2. Because Of DRM, The Entire Copyright Monopoly Legislation Is A Lie

   Would you consider it reasonable if the copyright monopoly legislation ended with the words “but if publishers think this law is too permissive, they can rewrite it as they like, and we’ll enforce that instead”? Because that’s exactly what the law looks like.

3. DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws

   We’ve written about the problems of DRM and anti-circumvention laws since basically when we started way back in 1997. Cory Doctorow has been writing about the same stuff for just about as long (or perhaps longer). And yet, just when you think everything that can be said about this stuff has been said, Doctorow comes along and writes what may be the best column describing why DRM, combined with anti-circumvention laws, is so incredibly nefarious. Read the whole thing. It’s so well done, and so important, I’m actually going to write two posts about it, because there are two separate issues that deserve highlighting.

4. Sony and Barnes & Noble look like their ebook days are numbered

5. You can’t resell Valve games in Germany – court

   A German court has dismissed a ‘reselling’ case in favour of Valve Software, the maker of Steam OS. German consumer group Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (vzbv) had filed a complaint against Valve as Valve’s EULA (End User Licence Agreement) prohibits users from re-selling their games.

6. OEM “Kill-switch” anti theft bill proposed by California State

   As more and more persons become owners of smart phones, thieves have found an ever increasing number of targets to prey on. Theft of cellphones is at an all time high in major urban centers across the US and many other countries, and the Californian government has decided to take a stance against it. With cellphones taking a more prominent roll in our lives, we all store sensitive information on our devices, and this is what the bill proposes to address.

Summary: The W3C is unlikely to pull away from DRM, but a high European court says that DRM can sometimes be legally circumvented

THE outrage over DRM inside Web 'standards' is a thing of the past. It couldn’t last forever and people have moved on to other problems. The MPAA got its way and given the new financial dependence on it (W3C was bribed by the MPAA [1]) we find it hard to believe that the Web’s founder and his colleagues will change course. TechDirt received credit for its coverage of the subject [2] and a new report from TechDirt says that “Europe’s Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances” [3].

Maybe civil disobedience or even circumvention of DRM on the Web will therefore be legitimate protest. Will that only be permissible in the Europe and, if so, under what circumstances? Either way, it’s good to know that the legal grounds of DRM (claiming that format shifting is an offence) are challenged and the illusion of control over surfers shaken somewhat. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Don’t let the MPAA buy the Web

   Last week, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) became a paying and governing member of World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (no, seriously).

2. Will Hollywood force DRM on web users via HTML5?

   Techdirt has a disturbing report about Hollywood attempting to force DRM on web users via HTML5.

3. Europe’s Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances

   One of the many problems with DRM is its blanket nature. As well as locking down the work in question, it often causes all kinds of other, perfectly legal activities to be blocked as well — something that the copyright industry seems quite untroubled by.

CORY from BoingBoing spent many years of his life fighting DRM. He is seemingly depressed, and claims to be unable to sleep, over what the World Wide Web Consortium is doing these days [1-3], noting additionally that DRM is now spreading to hardware [4,5]. GNU/Linux has already come under attack from Sony [6] because of DRM [7]. Steam, a DRM-loving rival of Sony, is also deleting games remotely right now, using DRM [8-9]. Some Linux-based ebook readers only support DRM ebooks that are also being deleted remotely, and the same goes for DRM-free ebooks [10], which can also be deleted remotely over the Internet. This makes DRM virtually a back door. It shows that Linux without freedom is not enough. DRM is a serious threat. It’s turning computing devices, not just data on them, into some kind of rented facilities, controlled remotely by some other party. How utterly disgusting. Amazon, which deleted books remotely (several times, even against the law), is now remotely deleting movies too [11,12]. The FOSS community is trying to fight back [13], but it cannot keep up with attacks on coding itself. The concept of ‘authorised’ programming/code (like DRM) is being introduced also [14], exceeding legal restriction and imposing them technically.

DRM is destroying our world. It is destroying our culture, it is ruining the Web, it burns books, it harms software development, and it also enables remote ‘bricking’ of machines. Devices become jails for their users, not just instruments of surveillance, and the very little useful function that remains in them can be removed or turned against the owners (remotely, with no indication of of it happening).

Those who still don’t understand why DRM is a very bad thing probably just don’t fully grasp DRM. DRM is in many way like a back door and now that the MPAA is part of the World Wide Web Consortium we expect future Web browsers — even FOSS browsers — to contain blobs and perhaps back doors. The MPAA spent many years lobbying to put back doors in every PC, not in order to target terrorists but in order to support an antiquated business model (protectionism, monopoly, and profit). █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Requirements for DRM in HTML5 are a secret

   The work at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) on adding DRM to HTML5 is one of the most disturbing developments in the recent history of technology. The W3C’s mailing lists have been full of controversy about this ever since the decision was announced.

   Most recently, a thread in the restricted media list asked about whether the requirements for DRM from the studios — who have pushed for DRM, largely through their partner Netflix — demonstrated that these requirements are secret.

   It’s hard to overstate how weird this is.

   Standardization is the process by which all the parties in a technical subject agree on how things should be done. It starts with a gathering of requirements — literally, “What is the standard required to do?” Without these requirements, it’s hard to see how standardization can take place. If you don’t know what you’re standardizing for, how can you standardize at all?

2. Hollywood Needs The Internet More Than The Internet Needs Hollywood… So Why Is The W3C Pretending Otherwise?

   Last week, we wrote about the MPAA joining the W3C almost certainly as part of its ongoing effort to push for DRM to be built into HTML5. Cory Doctorow has a beautifully titled blog post about all of this, saying that “we are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell.”

3. We are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell.

   As near as I can work out, there’s no one poised to do anything about this. Google, Apple and Microsoft have all built proprietary DRM silos that backed the WC3 into accepting standardization work on DRM (and now the W3C have admitted the MPAA as a member – an organization that expressly believes that all technology should be designed for remote, covert control by someone other than its owner, and that it should be illegal to subvert this control).

4. High-end CNC machines can’t be moved without manufacturers’ permission

5. Latest Twist On DRM Of Physical Products: Machines Locked Down By Geolocation

   As the Boing Boing article quoted above explains, this seems to be a requirement of the US government, and is designed to prevent machines being sent to Iran in violation of the embargo placed on that country.

   [...]

   What’s particularly troubling is that the cost of adding GPS capabilities is already low, and will inevitably become lower. That raises the possibility of a wider range of devices being locked down by geolocation — and of their owners’ rights being eroded down even more.

6. Sony Class Action Over Linux On PS3 Partially Revived

   A Ninth Circuit panel on Monday partially reversed a lower court decision squashing a putative class action accusing Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC of reneging on its promise to let users run alternative operating systems on their PlayStation 3s.

7. Blu-ray Encryption—Why Most People Pirate Movies

   I get a fair amount of e-mail from readers asking how a person could do “questionable” things due to limitations imposed by DRM. Whether it’s how to strip DRM from ebooks, how to connect to Usenet or how to decrypt video, I do my best to point folks in the right direction with lots of warnings and disclaimers. The most frustrating DRM by far has been with Blu-ray discs.

8. Steam Removes Game ‘Order Of War: Challenge’ From User Libraries

9. Valve deletes ‘Order of War: Challenge’ from Steam user libraries

   Lot of games have been taken down from Steam store in the past years, but for the very first time Steam has removed games from user libraries. Yes, the very game that the users had purchased with their money. The game in question is Order of War: Challenge, a World war II strategy game developed by Wargaming.net and published by Square Enix in 2009.

10. Kobo Aura HD eReader is Linux-friendly

    So you can quite easily add your own existing ebooks to the Aura HD; however you can also, if you wish, take advantage of Kobo’s online ebook store. If you purchase ebooks from the store or even just wish to sample a preview, it will be added to your Kobo account and automatically synced to your device, which is nice. But if you wish to only buy and use DRM-free ebooks, you can do so and avoid the Kobo store altogether.

11. Can’t stream that Christmas movie you “bought” on Amazon? Blame Disney

12. Amazon Pulls Access to Purchased Christmas Videos During Christmas

    Disney has decided to pull access to several purchased Christmas videos from Amazon during the holiday season, as the movie studio wants its TV-channel to have the content exclusively. Affected customers have seen their videos disappear from their online libraries, showing once again that not everything you buy is actually yours to keep.

13. GStreamer Might Tackle DRM, Blu-Ray Support

    At the recent GStreamer Conference 2013 there was a presentation on “Taking Gstreamer to the Next Level” and in there some interesting features were brought up.

14. German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For ‘Illegal’ Functions Submitted By Community

    We just had an article mentioning that Germany has a ridiculous (and dangerously anti-innovation) view towards secondary liability, in which the country’s courts often default to making third parties liable for actions they did not do. We noted that a court in Stuttgart had decided that the Wikimedia Foundation could be held liable for content submitted by a community member on the site, though only after the organization was alerted to the content (which still has significant problems for what are hopefully obvious reasons).

MICROSOFT has already given up on Silverlight — its attempt to establish lock-in on the Web (worse than ActiveX) which was aided by another defunct project from a Microsoft MVP and mole. This has not, however, totally eliminated the efforts to pollute the Web with DRM, binary extensions, etc. Some project called Pipelight is trying to put Microsoft Silverlight right inside GNU/Linux. “A proposal has been submitted for having Microsoft Silverlight plug-in support in Ubuntu 14.04 LTS as part of the main archive via the Pipelight project,” Michael Larabel writes. “Previous to that there was work in 2012 for a patched version of Wine to get Netflix on Linux.”

This project which is run by Erich Hoover, Michael Müller, and Sebastian Lackner is not helping GNU/Linux. It is not a good thing. Netflix, which is closely connected to Microsoft, does a horrible thing by promoting DRM on the Web (even at standardisation level) and Microsoft is fighting against the open Web. We need to reject this, not become ‘compatible’ with it. █

PEOPLE WHO buy a mobile phone may think that they own it, but they don’t. Putting aside phones’ role as surveillance devices (tracking the so-called ‘owner’), phones are to be treated more like rented devices, especially after this new ban [1] which calls modification “unlocking” and then criminalises it. This unjust move is sheltered by some unjust laws previously passed against the people and for corporations. The same sorts of laws also ban circumvention of DRM, which based on reports [2] may actually be doing more harm than good to business.

The most interesting article, however, speaks of a Free software project [3] which is now held liable for third-party DRM-busting. This puts under unprecedented siege software developers all around the world. The legal system is yet again being used to impose restrictions on software developers. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Unauthorized unlocking of smartphones becomes illegal Saturday

   The feds mandate fidelity between carriers and users: New rule under DMCA outlaws unlocking new handsets without carrier permission.

2. What Piracy? Removing DRM Boosts Music Sales by 10 Percent

   DRM was once praised as the ultimate tool to prevent music piracy, but new research shows that the opposite is true. Comparing album sales of four major labels before and after the removal of DRM reveals that digital music revenue increases by 10% when restrictions are removed. The effect goes up to 30% for long tail content, while top-selling albums show no significant jump. The findings suggest that dropping technical restrictions can benefit both artists and the major labels.

3. Court: Open Source Project Liable For 3rd Party DRM-Busting Coding

   A judgment handed down by a German court against an open source software project is being described as “worrisome” by the company at the heart of the case. Appwork, the outfit behind the hugely popular JDownloader software, can be held liable for coding carried out by third-party contributors, even when they have no knowledge of its functionality. Appwork informs TorrentFreak that the judgment will be a burden on the open source creative process.

Summary: The definition of hypocrisy matches some of those (high-profile figures) who claim to be against censorship

IF someone criticises censorship and promotes free speech, then it is imperative to see that someone’s own response to speech s/he does not like. A lot of people say that they are for free speech only when they defend the rights of those with whom they agree; a lot of people complain about censorship only when their own views are being suppressed or banned. One can only be a champion of free speech when he or she can tolerate uncomfortable messages, sometimes even libel (for which there are solutions other than censorship).

The other day we saw DRM apologist [1, 2, 3] Tim Berners-Lee expressing concern about censorship and lack of privacy [1,2], two things which DRM pretty much assures. So who is he to speak out for free speech and anonymity while promoting DRM? In similar news, see Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt speaking out about the end of censorship [3] — a problem that Google is a part of [1, 2]. Then there’s Neelie Kroes, whose “think about the children” mentality and betrayal of net neutrality [4] (which is necessary for free speech) cannot be forgotten when she speaks about “online safety” (common excuse for imposing censorship) [5].

Here in the UK things aren’t getting better. There are fresh attacks on free speech in universities [6] and this can be seen a lot more frequently these days when it comes to journalism which touches GCHQ et al. — meaning software vandals, crackers, and saboteurs from the NSA and its ilk (people who break the law under the veil of secrecy and immunity by affiliation with statism). Those in power are also using legal threats in an attempt to silence voices by proxy (via site maintainers) [7], so even those who defend free speech are increasingly being threatened with lawsuits. It is horrifying.

This state of affairs is ill-gotten and we need to find a way out of it. For a start, let’s name defenders of free speech who aren’t. They’re just posers. Sadly, some FOSS sites are also hypocrites on the subject of free speech (we won’t name them to avoid embarrassment or infighting). █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Tim Berners-Lee: UK and US must do more to protect internet users’ privacy

   ‘Tide of surveillance and censorship’ threatens future of democracy, says inventor of world wide web

2. Tim Berners-Lee warns against government surveillance

3. Google’s Schmidt predicts end of censorship within a decade

   Google Inc (GOOG.O) Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt has a bold prediction: Censorship around the world could end in a decade, and better use of encryption will help people overcome government surveillance.

   In a lecture at Johns Hopkins University on Wednesday, the executive of the world’s biggest web search company made a pitch for ending censorship in China and other countries with restricted freedom of speech by connecting everyone to the Internet and protecting their communication from spying.

4. Will the EU Parliament Enable Discrimination Online or Uncompromising Net Neutrality?

   The rapporteur Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP – Spain) has concluded her draft report on Neelie Kroes’ proposal for a Regulation on the Telecom Package. Despite numerous criticisms1 made against the unacceptable anti-Net neutrality provisions in the proposal, del Castillo Vera has chosen not to correct them. Before it is too late, citizens must contact the rapporteur and Members of the ITRE committee, and urge them to ensure the European Parliament guarantees a genuine and unconditional Net neutrality principle.

5. Teaching online safety: I go “back to school”

   hildren now go online at a very young age. This is good thing: they can benefit from better digital and media literacy; and explore creative and educational online content. This is why Androulla Vassiliou and I launched the Opening up Education initiative.

   The Internet is a fantastic opportunity for young people. But they need to act responsibly too: and in particular to be aware of and able to cope with potential dangers. They must understand that our digital footprint is ever growing, and information put on the web can be misused.

6. Universities should be the last place to ban free speech

   The censorship of an atheist bookstall at freshers’ week is just another example of heavy-handed repression in our universities

7. Appeals Court To Explore If A Site With ‘Dirt’ In The URL Loses All Liability Protections For User Comments

   We’ve covered the bizarre case of Sarah Jones vs. Dirty World (operators of the website “thedirty.com”) for quite some time. If you don’t recall, this former professional cheerleader/school teacher got upset when a user of thedirty.com posted some statements about her that were potentially defamatory. Rather than go after the actual person who made those claims, Jones sued the site. Well, technically, she and her lawyers first sued the wrong site, which made for quite a mess at the beginning. Eventually, though, she sued the right site, which correctly pointed out that they were protected from liability for their users statements under Section 230 of the CDA. Every court that has taken on a Section 230 case like this has ruled the same way — that sites are not responsible for the statements of their users. E

Summary: Send Renault a strong message by rejecting its ‘innovation’ which gives corporations control over people’s cars (for financial reasons)

THERE IS some appalling work being done by Renault [1], as noted by Karsten Gerloff from the FSFE [2]. Basically, ignoring the security impact of taking power away from the driver^*, Renault is now letting the battery become unavailable even when it is still technically available. What a dangerous precedence and ‘innovation’ that is. Renault gives control to some corporations over the driver who owns and drives the car. Why would anyone want to actually pay Renault for such defective-by-design cars?

Let’s hope that Renault’s endeavor will die a quick death, along with DRM on the Web. Microsoft’s previous attempt to bring DRM to the Web was malware called Silverlight, which is turning into a security nightmare even years after its death [3]. The very idea of DRM needs to die. It is contemptible as a concept. █
____
^* Based on some stories, we already know about computerised cars getting hijacked to kill or punish the driver (and everyone else in the car).

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Would you use a batter with DRM restrictions?

   Moves by Renault to install a battery with digital rights management (DRM) restrictions that can remotely prevent the battery from charging have been slammed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

   The new Renault Zoe comes with a “feature” which locks the owner into a contract with a battery maker which is enforced by a DRM within the car’s computer.

   This also lets Renault use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to stop people tinkering with the car software so they can install a battery of their choice. All this means, you will not be allowed to fix your car without permission and only with official parts. You cannot jailbreak the car.

2. Renault Introduces DRM For Cars

   The problems with DRM for videos, music, ebooks and games are well known. Despite those issues for the purchasers of digital goods, companies love DRM because it gives them control over how their products are used — something that has been much harder to achieve in the analog world. The risk is that as digital technologies begin to permeate traditional physical products, they will bring with them new forms of DRM, as this post by Karsten Gerloff about Zoe, one of Renault’s electric cars, makes clear…

3. Cybercriminals target Silverlight browser plug-in users with new exploit kit

   The creators of a web-based attack tool called Angler Exploit Kit have added an exploit for a known vulnerability in Microsoft’s Silverlight browser plug-in to the tool’s arsenal.

Summary: How the Internet, a platform of mass dissemination, cracked the copyright monopoly and how this monopoly is trying to get back in the old game

SHARING is not about breaking the law. It is about making information — however it’s stored — available for free, maximising dissemination without exploiting financial limitations (as typically done so divisively for profit). A society which maximises sharing and cooperation is better equipped to fight and perhaps end poverty. It can distribute generic drugs (developed with grants to the public sector, never to be privatised), maximise one’s access to material (video, audio, text, etc.), so rather than preach greed and competition we should aspire to incentivise sharing, punishing/penalising those who hoard and resort to protectionism (like trans-national/continental/oceanic deals).

“The goal is to educate people and help them realise that more sharing is more beneficial to more people.”Based on articles like [1], more people turn to the Web and take advantage of fair use or liberal licensing of videos in order to get “entertained” (to use a self-serving euphemism like “content” and “consumption”). Google, Microsoft, and Netflix (close partner of Microsoft) are trying to put DRM in Web standards and so far they have mostly succeeded [1, 2, 3]. This is very bad news. The Web has become a huge platform for commerce, communication, and so much more. Losing control of the Web (to corporations) would have devastating effects for decades to come.

According to news from [2], “European Parliament Members Explore Decriminalizing File-Sharing” and there is evidence that so-called “pirate” politicians are gaining public support [3]. The British Pirate Party (led by a man from Manchester) gains access to Parliament [4] and a French site advocating people’s rights [5] gets involved in the Committee of the European Parliament as well. Copyright destroys culture, sharing saves it. The Internet Archive building was damaged by fire last week [6], reminding us that just because a few people with a good cause choose to preserve information doesn’t guarantee preservation. We need to make sharing the norm (not too aggressively [7] as that just leads to blowback [8]). The goal is to educate people and help them realise that more sharing is more beneficial to more people. The gategeekers of the old world (far less than 1% of the population) are those who would lose from a culture that thrives in free sharing. As these people control our media and our politicians (and apparently the W3C too), it is too easy to overlook this simple fact. Their propaganda is taken for fact and absorbed by so many people out there. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Netflix, YouTube gobble up half of Internet traffic

   Netflix and YouTube together make up half of peak Internet traffic in North America while their main rivals barely register, a study says. At the same time, file sharing is a sliver of its former self.

2. European Parliament Members Explore Decriminalizing File-Sharing

   Frustrated by the lack of copyright reform in Europe, several Members of European Parliament have started a coordinated platform to urge the European Commission to update its outdated policy. The MEPs are looking for a more flexible copyright system which benefits European citizens and businesses, including the decriminalization of file-sharing for personal use. The first steps towards these goals are to be made during an event in Brussels on Tuesday.

3. Vote Christian For The Pirate Party EU Ballot – Here’s Why

4. Pirates at the 8th Annual Parliament and Internet Conference

   This week two delegates (Governors Harley faggetter and Stephen Ogden) from the Pirate Party UK attended the Eighth Annual Parliament and Internet Conference on 31st October. The event, held by the Parliamentary Internet, Communications and Technology Forum (PICTFOR) which is the leading all-party group in the technology sector in the Houses of Parliament, was attended by parliamentarians, regulators, delegates from technology industries, public interest groups and many more.

5. The Castex Resolution on Private Copying Must Take Sharing Into Account!

   The “Legal Affairs” (JURI) Committee of the European Parliament will consider on Monday, November 4th, the draft resolution on Private copying levies of the Member of the EU Parliament Françoise Castex. The draft invites the EU Commission and Member States “to examine the possibility of legalising works sharing for non-commercial purposes so as to guarantee consumers access to a wide variety of content and real choice in terms of cultural diversity”, but has been the subject of numerous attacks to stall the debate on sharing once again. Ahead of the vote, citizens must mobilize and ask MEPs to maintain this reference, so as to force the Commission to consider all means for the recognition of sharing and to guarantee cultural rights in Europe.

6. Internet Archive building damaged by fire

   The non-profit organisation behind the Internet Archive has made a plea for donations following a fire at its building in San Francisco.

7. Too Much Cash Causes Pirate Admin to Quit, 43K Ebook Dump Imminent

   Faced with unmanageable euro revenues “in six digits” and a reluctance of publishers to legitimize the site, the administrator of a Tor-based download site developed to shake up the eBook market says he has been forced to leave the project. In other knock-on developments, TorrentFreak is informed that the site’s contents – around 43,000 eBooks – will today spill out onto the Internet, free of charge.

8. Piracy Release Group Has Been Spying on Downloaders For 9 Months

Summary: Digital handcuffs in Web standards are discussed in a new article from CMSWire

A week ago, following recent criticisms of DRM in HTML5 (going back to June), CMSWire asked me: “Will the decision by W3C to include encrypted media extensions into the HTML5.1 standard have a positive or negative effect on web experiences?” An article has just been published to address this subject and my take on it (which is in the second page, closing the article) was as follows:

Web experiences are not the sole factor to consider here. Several years ago, Microsoft used such arguments to promote Silverlight and Adobe had promoted Adobe Flash Player by saying it would enhance web experiences. This overlooks a lot of the attributes of the Web, including search/indexing, navigation by standard link structure, universal access, etc. But there are bigger issues here.

In order to effectively tackle the question we need to lay bear what DRM in HTML 5.x would mean. DRM is a mechanism that prevents access to information. It is designed to facilitate a particular business model of particular parties, which are only some of many. DRM denies the majority of people — or bots — the ability to obtain data. This in itself is against the raison detre or the spirit of the World Wide Web. If the Web was motivated by sharing, then it would best serve society by encouraging business models of abundance, not artificial scarcity.

The step taken by the W3C sought to make it easier for conglomerates that advocate DRM to advance their agenda which they had long lobbied for. We already know, based on experience, that many companies embraced a model of open access or open data, only to yield benefits to all sides, maximising access.

To pose this as a problem of “web experiences” is to present a loaded question. Everyone wants a good web experience, but the issue at stake is inherently one of power and control. Do we want to emancipate Web users or further empower the copyright monopoly? Whose interests are we promoting?

This response, quite frankly, was written too quickly, but it hopefully represents opposition to DRM in HTML5 adequately enough. █

Source: Original from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, modified by Techrights

Summary: The Web’s founder, Tim Berners-Lee, now actively defends the copyright cartel, only to find loud opposition even from his biggest and more prominent fans

Tim Berners-Lee is quickly losing credibility and he has nobody else to blame. He actively echoes Hollywood talking points or at least Hollywood’s apologists, to whom a copyright monopoly or cartel is perfectly acceptable if not essential.

“It’s that time of the year again,” writes iopkh.” Time to remind the media that there are no such things as Nobel prizes in astrology, professional wrestling or economics.” Here is Cory Doctorow speaking out his mind again, urging Mozilla to tackle DRM like it already tackles Flash, namely:

Mozilla’s Shumway project, an attempt to create a replacement Flash plug-in that uses HTML5, might ever so slightly placate those barracking for the latter. Previously Shumway has only been available as a separate extension, but it recently made its way into Firefox’s nightly builds, hinting at the prospect of mainline inclusion somewhere down the line.

Glyn Moody, a vocal fan of Tim Berners-Lee, has become quite a notable opposer of his stance of DRM in HTML5. He raises some very good points:

Tim Berners-Lee on Why HTML5 “Needs” DRM

[...]

That’s an extremely odd comment, since it divides up the online world up into active creators and passive consumers. That’s precisely the framing that the copyright industry adopts in an attempt to minimise the rights of Internet users, and to belittle their role.

[...]

Putting users first is great, but this sets up a false dichotomy between those who “like to watch big-budget movies at home” and those who want an open Web, as if the former must lose if the latter win. But it’s ridiculous to suggest that companies like Netflix will stop streaming video over the Internet if the Web does not include DRM. It may do it with proprietary Web plugins, or it might even insist that people use standalone code, but that’s not a problem – it is exactly how it’s been done in the past.

Moreover, the open Web will exist and thrive even if some people choose to use proprietary code, just as open source thrives despite the existence of some closed-source applications. The only people who might conceivably lose out if DRM isn’t included in HTML is the W3C, who won’t be able to control exactly how those non-Web parts operate. But that’s true now, anyway, and I can’t believe that the W3C is so power crazed that it wants to sacrifice the open Web solely to extend its empire a little further.

The longer this goes on for, the worse Tim Berners-Lee’s reputation will get. He hopefully understands this by now. The NSA already threatens forking of the Web. Tim Berners-Lee might do the same with his stance. If not a fork, then an alternative might be put forth. There were several Web-like prototypes preceding Tim Berners-Lee’s. Although some were better, they never quite caught on. Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C may feel like they have no competition, so they think that they can get away with DRM. █