If I'm a musician, and I want to sell my music in a way that prevents the buyer from redistributing it, then I don't think that is unethical. I think the musician has the right to make that choice. You have a right not to buy it in that form.
Can a musician come to your house and start monitoring you to prevent redistribution? No, it's invasive and unethical to do it. It's along the lines of invasive surveillance in a totalitarian police state for the sake of "security". Treating your paying customers in such way is a gross disrespect. DRM does exactly that - it's preemptive policing which violates privacy and treats users as potential criminals by default. It's insulting and unethical to do so.
I'm not even saying that it's pointless, since it doesn't prevent piracy. DRM punishes and insults paying customers who care to buy the content, and does nothing to stop illegal redistribution and doesn't affect those who don't care to buy and pirate the stuff. So what is the point in using it? To upset paying customers by limiting usability of the content and by increasing security and malware risks in shady DRM programs?
Distributors should start treating users with respect if they want any respect back. And it always pays off. In general I get the feeling that actual creators (musicians, authors and etc.) don't care about all this DRM idiocy. Those who push it are publishers/distributors, who can't comprehend a simple thing - DRM has no useful application at all, all it does - it degrades the user experience and punishes paying customers.
I'm sorry, DRM is not like a musician coming to your house and monitoring you. That is where you lose me and probably most people. I also disagree with the idea that protecting content you create is unethical. If I own a store, and put a lock on the door, it is not unethical because I am assuming that someone might try to break in and take stuff. That is roughly what you are saying. Or you know how most pharmacies and grocery stores keep some things behind a locked display? I do not find that to be unethical, yet by your logic we should.
I'm a customer, and I don't find DRM insulting to me. I see it as content creators attempting to find a way to continue getting paid for content they create in this new world. I think it is pointless, but that is very different from what you are saying.
I see absolutely no harm in adding the ability to use DRM in html5 video. It has absolutely no affect on the rest of the open web. There is still the ability to put non-DRMed content on the web. If you truly believed that customers would reject DRM, and you seem to think so, then you shouldn't have a problem with giving people the choice and letting consumers vote with their feet.
>I also disagree with the idea that protecting content you create is unethical. If I own a store, and put a lock on the door, it is not unethical because I am assuming that someone might try to break in and take stuff.
Your analogy is wrong. People buying content is analogous to going to the store, buying something and bringing it home. Protecting the store is all fine with me - it's analogous to creating authentication, allowing only registered users to buy and so on. DRM goes much further than that. If you want to use the store analogy, it would mean that after buying a product, the store sends their police bot with you, which comes to your house and watches what you do, preventing you from potential illegal activity. I find it completely unethical and unacceptable practice. Another analogy would be placing a police camera right in your house, for the sake of preventing situations when you decide to do something illegal. Do you think it's acceptable?
DRM is running on your computer, in your house on your device in your private network. It's a closed black box which you suddenly are supposed to trust? Why so? One shouldn't trust it, especially given the history of abusing these things. Trust always depends on mutuality. DRM means they don't trust you by default assuming you are going to use the content illegally. Why after that you suddenly are supposed to trust them? They should be treated in the same fashion and not trusted by default!
We disagree on the core principle here. You don't consider DRM unethical, so you don't see a problem to put it in the HTML standard. I consider the whole approach unethical and therefore putting it in the standard as unacceptable.
However I brought several arguments why it's pointless even according to your view. One of them - it's a dying trend which is impractical altogether (i.e. it achieves no useful purpose and on the contrary only degrades usability and ignores the issues of fair use and accessibility). Therefore making it a standard is wrong, since it means promoting dying pointless trends on the Web.
> Sony put a root kit in some software, therefore DRM is unethical.
It's not because of Sony's case DRM is unethical. Just the opposite - because DRM is unethical, cases like Sony's are to be expected from it. I.e. Sony's case just demonstrates how easy it is to abuse preemptive policing, and that most users won't even notice it right away.
> My original point stands.
It stands not on the principles of the open Web though. I already explained above that DRM stands on the concepts of Orwellian police state and big brother approach, and that your analogy with protecting the store was incorrect. You didn't answer on the essence of the question so far.
Ok, it wasn't a non sequitur, it's an egregious circular argument. DRM is unethical because Sony put a root it on people's systems, and Sony put a root kit on people's systems because DRM is unethical.
So far you didn't argue again with the fact that DRM is intrusive, violates privacy and is analogous to police bot in your house, rather than to fence around the store. Dwell on it more, and it'll be pretty clear why DRM should be strongly opposed. Have a nice day too.
For a change, here is my favorite story about pitfalls of intrusive preemptive policing:
