To my mind there are two types of DRM:
That used on products which are bought, like DVDs and some games, which I think is wrong because it (in theory at least) restricts the freedom of the buyer to use the product as they wish in ways like format-shifting.
The other is DRM on streams that are either pay-per-view or free-to-view. This I don't object to so much as it allows the viewing of works which would otherwise not be broadcast because users making copies would not buy DVDs. Another reason to hate DRM on bought media, of course.
What I think is odd from the argument against DRM in HTML5 is this argument:Any site which has reason to use DRM is already using it. The "battle" between those who produce media and those who pirate it mean that anyone exposing media on the web does so knowing it must be DRMd or it will be copied. How will having DRM included in HTML5 make those producing creative commons media stop doing that?
I find this particularly weird though:It suggests to me that RMS has no interest whatsoever in using the internet to rent video or watch free-to-air programming content. If he did he would know that all pay-per-view video on the web already locks Linux out by using Silverlight and the rest will be locking out all Linux users apart from those using Google Chrome once they need a feature present in Adobe Flash. We are already in this situation and it is DRM in HTML5 which may allow Linux users to enjoy parity with Windows and Mac users when it comes to online video.
Anyone not wanting any DRM on Linux has to accept that it means no non-free video on the platform. Of course, it's far from my decision to make but I would be sad to have to buy an operating system and pay for a company like Microsoft or Apple to steal from smaller companies, and turn my back on Linux.

Heh ... "RMS" can afford to do things like that, because he's a trust-fund baby, living on Uncle Sugar's defense-money earned by his dad while keeping his name in every spotlight.

The thing is, DRM has to be considered in a standard, because otherwise you have (a) chaos, and (b) no real idea whether the various chaotically-designed schemes will work. They certainly will not be inter-operable. The scheme does not have to be "cryptographically secure," but it does need to be a public matter, and a matter of agreement or consensus.

Now, even in the best of times, "computer" and "standard" are words like "oil" and "water" ... :D

Standardizing it will surely lead to an increase in its use, so I am 100% against it, and that's not gonna change.

I don't agree with everything RMS has to say, in fact I disagree a lot with some of it, but he is usually right when it comes to FLOSS and computing freedom.

How does that follow? All the people who want to lock down video are doing so and those who don't want to lock it down aren't. Why would people suddenly decide to start locking down video they made a concious decision not to lock down?

Today is international day against DRM:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/...ay-against-drm

Because it has been made easier and more convenient by standardizing it, and more available to everyone (platform independent).

Yes, that's exactly what you want, and what I don't want. You want convenience, I don't want DRM.

How is it hard now? I ask again, why would people who have made a decision to allow their video to be open make the decision to lock it down?
Who are these hundreds of people providing tons of free content who will lock it down tomorrow if they can?
In case you haven't noticed almost everyone who provides video uses a third-party plug-in and those plug-ins all allow DRM. So it will not be any easier to implement DRM than it is now because it's trivially easy now and everyone who wants to do it is doing it.

You don't want commercial video available on Linux. Fair enough, but some of us do.
As I said, it will be a sad day for me when I have to pay one of the great patent trolls of the West for software, That day is approaching pretty fast from where I'm sitting -- about as fast as Adobe can bring about the fall of Flash.

People use Linux for different reasons, and it may not always be GNU/Linux. Their reasons for using it may also change with time.

People will eventually end up using whatever fits with their lifestyle and philosophy. I cannot change that, nor do I want to. But, I'll tell you what I can do. I can fight for my own lifestyle and philosophy and not let others pollute it or corrupt it.

If you choose not to use Linux, because you absolutely must have something that is so inconvenient or impossible to obtain otherwise except for inserting DRM into parts of it, from where it can grow like an evil seed or cancerous cell ... then I don't care if you choose another OS, and I will do everything I can to stop DRM from being inserted.

I am getting bored with this topic and I've said everything I need to say, so I'm out.

This. The "free video streams will become 'protected' if a DRM scheme is standardized" argument is just incredibly silly and weak. It's also a particularly baseless example of the slipperly slope fallacy. If any streaming video provider is not already using DRM, it's obviously not because DRM is technically unfeasible.

What I'm saying here, dugan et al, is that DRM does need to be part of the discussed standard. Whether or not people actually follow that in their respective implementations, the legitimate need to talk about it during the design-and-spec stage is there.

We're seeing a re-play of what happens when engineering is not well thought out, in the form of the Windows-8 copy protection attempt. Someone decided, first of all, that the reason why Windows sales are tanking, version after version after version (since XP), is that "people must be ripping us off! Yeah, that's it!" (That point-of-view is a lot less likely to "get your Ballmers ripped off" ;) than the other option: "people aren't buying Windows because our products SUCK! And BLOW!") :D

So, in the name of copy protection (or something), they came up with a hairball idea that meant that Win8 could not be installed on anything but a brand-new computer, and that nothing but Win8 could be installed there. And, since no one was listening to or talking to anyone else anyway, this engineering horsefly actually launched. (The signing-key was "leaked" about two weeks later, for reasons that are perfectly obvious to anyone who, like, needs to use these computers to, like, get paid.) :rolleyes:

If the HTML5 committees keep DRM "on their radar," they'll be at least a little bit less likely to create a system that can't support DRM (should anyone actually want to do it) without breaking. We know that HTML5 is going to be with us for a long, long time. They need to "crystal ball" a lot of things, and this is one of those things.

Speaking of Microsoft: IIRC they were responsible for one of the most controversial DRM scheme proposals ever: the Palladium initiative. The market rejected it and Microsoft is still bitter. Anyway...

I have no idea why you named me, as I've made it clear that I'm in favor of the HTML5 DRM proposal, but no, DRM doesn't need to be part of the standard. The standard can simply empower browser plugins to implement streaming video DRM. Which is, of course, what it does now. That's no more or less likely to "break in the future" than any other proposal or implementation.

Arstechnica comments:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013...-not-a-defeat/

So, how does that help with your argument ? I thought it was supposed to make it more platform-independent and accessible.

It apparently doesn't.

But it should be acceptable to you because you can easily choose not to install the content decryption modules.

Acceptable, but yet another step down towards DRM hell.