W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by wdewind on Thursday October 03, 2013 @04:51PM (#6491949)

It's not my company, and the things I'm saying don't represent the opinions of my employer.

To your question, is it "ok," I couldn't provide the answer as I don't own the copyright.

My statement was that I wish we lived in a world without copyright. The rules would be very different, and thus we would act and compete differently. As is, brand is an important asset for a company. I think you know all this.

I also think your argument is a bit sophomoric and I find it obnoxious that you are calling out my employer's name.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by waqf on Thursday October 03, 2013 @06:39PM (#6492641)

What do brands have to do with copyright law?

Or are you also advocating for changes to trademark law?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by pitchups on Friday October 04, 2013 @01:48AM (#6493923)

It seems counter intuitive and even foolish to suggest that you could increase innovation and creativity by getting rid of copyrights and patents. But there is a great great example of an industry that actually thrives in both sales and innovation, despite not having any copyrights or patents - the fashion industry.

This TED talk explains it quite well : http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by gaius on Saturday October 05, 2013 @08:28AM (#6500475)

The elephant in the corner of your argument is trademarks, which are vigorously protected by fashion labels.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by wdewind on Thursday October 03, 2013 @08:22PM (#6493027)

You're right, I'm conflating the two. I mean to be saying intellectual property law in general, which I am not a huge fan of.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by dublinben on Friday October 04, 2013 @10:03AM (#6495399)

If you're against "intellectual property" then you shouldn't use that propaganda term. Refer to the specific legal protections at issue, like copyright, patents, or trademarks, because they are all have very different functions and purposes.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by burntsushi on Saturday October 05, 2013 @11:25AM (#6500924)

Copyrights, patents and trademarks all share a single unifying assumption: ideas are things that can be owned. Since I disagree with that assumption, it makes sense to speak about "disagreeing with intellectual property" if IP is just a synonym for "a legal framework that uses violence to support laws that allow ideas to be owned."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards by wdewind on Friday October 04, 2013 @11:13AM (#6495801)

That's an interesting piece, thanks for sharing. I think from the perspective of "what existing pieces of culture can I use to create something new" IP is actually a useful bucket. From the perspective of people who have already created or are consuming that piece of culture, I agree that combining trademark with copyright and patents is not useful.

[ Parent | on HN ]