The W3C Sells Out Users Without Seeming To Get Anything In Return 348
An anonymous reader writes "Questioning the W3C's stance on DRM, Simon St. Laurent asks 'What do we get for that DRM?' and has a thing or two to say about TBL's cop-out: 'I had a hard time finding anything to like in Tim Berners-Lee's meager excuse for the W3C's new focus on digital rights management (DRM). However, the piece that keeps me shaking my head and wondering is a question he asks but doesn't answer: If we, the programmers who design and build Web systems, are going to consider something which could be very onerous in many ways, what can we ask in return? Yes. What should we ask in return? And what should we expect to get? The W3C appears to have surrendered (or given?) its imprimatur to this work without asking for, well, anything in return. "Considerations to be discussed later" is rarely a powerful diplomatic pose.'"
Re:Anyone noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
music, maybe. It's video that is a nightmare right now
Tone down your rhetoric (Score:1, Insightful)
Adding something to an open standard is "selling out"? WTF? Calm down and get a sense of perspective before posting these stories, or at least do a little research and see what you're talking about. The world is not ending. Nobody is forcing you to use DRM on your website.
It's crap like this that makes me wonder why anyone still reads this site.
We didn't need considerations... (Score:5, Insightful)
TV 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many forces commercial and governmental both which want to rein in the internet. It's too dangerous in their view to have anyone able to communicate freely with anyone else without permission or monitoring.
Thus gradually step by step the once open nature of the internet will be closed down. The problem is that people look at each 1/1000th of the whole picture and say "that isn't so bad!". Secure boot. That isn't so bad, you can disable it! (for now). DRM in HTML5. That isn't so bad! Etc. But the overall trends is clear. The internet became what it was before the authoritarians really became aware of it. They won't make that mistake again, and they will act to put more and more controls on it both legal and technical, until what made it an incredible thing is gone.
Re:Anyone noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
And we won the music wars primarily because there was no DRM in the standard. Every attempt to impose a DRM-hobbled "standard" on the music industry came from a single company: RealAudio wasn't real, Apple's AAC fell to the wayside, Microsoft's SureWontPlay, etc. We forced content providers to choose: Roll your own DRM product and fail, or adopt a DRM-free standard, and make money.
By leaving DRM out of the standard for the Web, we could have forced content providers into that same choice: offer DRM-free video at a price, or starve.
I like Netflix. But I don't like Netflix more than I like the web.
Re:Without DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is with DRM is that nobody will use it. Having DRM is not about being free or not, is the companies controlling how, when and where people could use the content they bought. Is about renting, not selling, and probably in the process getting ownership of the client hardware, own data, and competition content (and is not something hypotetic, Sony already used DRM to install a rootkit in the past [wikipedia.org]). This always was about punishing and abusing your customers, the ones that actually pay, not the ones trying to get a free ride.
And doing this, in this very moment that the intelligence agencies try to make cracks to get their backdoors inserted in every computer, is not just stupid, is criminal. Internet is getting physically broken into pieces thanks to US intervention, and will be in logical pieces thanks to this DRMd shoot in the foot.
Tone up your rhetoric (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nobody is forcing you to use DRM on your website."
They are forcing it into his browser by declaring it a standard, and the websites can use it without his explicit permission. So he's entitled to be pissed at them. Really it should carry a mandatory 'turn off' flag. Also what makes you think you get the choice even with 'your' website. You use adverts, you use third party software, you'll get stuck with this.
Think of it this way, one of the first uses for this will be the NSA injecting a surveillance packet, so it can track us without us being able to delete their tracker. Is that OK with you? What about GCHQ injecting its packet into American browsers, ok still? What about China injecting its drm packet? Ok? Google, OK? Microsoft? Still OK? Facebook? Still happy?
Re:Anyone noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know the answer: (Score:5, Insightful)
We get a standards-based way to deliver copyrighted media
You're an idiot. The DRM is NOT standard, only the hooks to it are. So no, you don't get that. You will get a ton of platform-specific, closed, binary blobs doing who knows what to your system.
If someone doesn't provide the blob for your minority platform, well, tough luck. That's VERY different from the web originally, where anyone- you, me, anyone - could read the spec and write our own web browser. Here, it's locked down hard.
You're either an idiot or a shill. Or possibly both.
Google and Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as Google and Mozilla simply fail to implement DRM, it will be DOA.
Rhetoric is well-justified if far too accepting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Losing the freedom to read is never a wise choice to make and certainly something to be politically active about. The world doesn't have to end for significant bad things to occur which demand our active principled disagreement and action. This issue isn't just about what one chooses to use on their site, it's about what users under the digital restrictions have to live with to make their computers behave in the way they want to. Saying one doesn't have to use digital restrictions management on their site is taking the weapon-user's point of view instead of the reader's point of view. Your attempt to marginalize the reader by comparing the objection to the world ending is reduction by hyperbole.
Asking what we're getting in exchange for the acceptance of DRM means one's priorities are misplaced—this question is entirely misplaced because nothing should restrict the reader. Trying to bargain for better terms after accepting a deal signals profound ignorance of how to get what readers need: the right to read [gnu.org].
Re:Without DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine by me. I can survive without their content. Can they survive without my money?
A company that does not sell its products goes under. I don't quite get why everyone thinks it would be different for content providers. Why does everyone think they got the longer breath, it's not like we're dying without the latest Hollywood crapfest.
Re:We didn't need considerations... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you don't need DRM. You don't produce content with value.
Producers of content with value want DRM.
I produce 'content with value'. I don't use DRM.
Nor do I care if 'content with value' isn't available because the producers don't get DRM. Let them go bust.
What's the fuss? (Score:5, Insightful)
Relax, it's W3C. It's not like any browser that ever existed did actually implement any of their standards correctly, what makes you think it's different with DRM?
Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We didn't need considerations... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, producers of content want money (well, the ones pushing the DRM, anyway). Money that comes from people paying for the privilege of watching their content.
But DRM does not bring viewers and it does not bring money. At best, it might prevent people from viewing the content without paying for it. It's the content - and the audience - that brings in the big bucks.
The point is, if you draw a line in the sand and say "No DRM" (either because of technical, legislative, or moral reasons) then the content producers will /still/ create their content, and they will /still/ make it available to the public because that's the only way they can get paid. The fact that they have to compete against "free" (pirated content) just means they don't get as /much/ money as they otherwise wish, but it does not mean that people will stop producing or selling their creations. We saw as much when the music industry was finally dragged - kicking and screaming - into the world of DRM-free tunes and actually ended up making more money than before.
The content producers are making a power grab because they think they can get away with, not because it is actually necessary and if they refuted they will ultimately have no choice but to do without DRM. It's not like they'll just say "fuck it, no more movies; from now on we're building toasters!", after all. They'll just adjust their business plan a bit and life will go on, except our culture won't be encumbered by their digital shackles.
So, yeah, there ought to be a stand against DRM. It's only the hard-line dinosaurs who are insisting upon it, unable to imagine a world where they don't have explicit control of their content - a world rapidly fading into the past. Both consumer and producer will ultimately be better off without it.
Re:Without DRM... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with those industries is te old saying: "there's one born every minute*". A never ending flux of uninformed idiots supports stupid businesses.
* it's more like 4 per second, now, so either that saying is incredibly outdated or it was coined by one of them.
Re:Tone down your rhetoric (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is the opposite of an open standard. Duh! DRM means that your browser (and possibly the computer it runs on) will have to be certified to behave just the way the DRM masters tell it to. How is that in any way compatible with a so-called open standard.
Re:We didn't need considerations... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tone down your rhetoric (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll respect copyright law once copyright law respects me back.
Re:DRM makes more free media likely, not less (Score:4, Insightful)
And just like today, DRM will be a bastard and suck down CPU cycles that on a limited system will make said content unusable. Worse, and the real reason to be against DRM, is that it introduces a layer of "trust us, download this" as a part of said "free content". That is the very hallmark of a lot of the current malware epidemic. That the W3C is greenlighting any of this is going to make already said limited systems even worse off if it catches on.
So, just like today, people will be better off just bypassing all of the above and pirating the content post DRM-removal.
Jolly, everyone else is doing a shitty job and pushing on DRM people. The W3C should too! Because making it a standard somehow makes it better.
Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as both a consumer and programmer I will NOT have any encrypted code or codex coursing through my system. The bullshit DRM'ed content and corresponding proprietary code is not worth the risk of losing control of the system that I do my banking on.
If the browser makers bow and include such features the must NOT be installed by default and be optional plugins that are installed after installation. If not, then I will simply remove from the sources any DRM that finds its way into any of the open source browsers I use. I will then compile and make available the binaries and sources without said defective by design non-features (providing a stampede of GNUs doesn't beat me to it).
Even if "mainstream" consumers do not flock at first to the more open non-proprietary systems, this DRM will still fracture the web along a line dividing the herd from those who would be heard decrying this move as invasive. It's not uncommon for an upstart to take the lead in the browser wars. In a post Snowden world, built in DRM'd browsers don't stand a chance. The mud will be slung, because it's fun to do so. How can you prove that the DRM module doesn't have a backdoor? If it's open source, then it will be subverted in seconds.
The W3C missed the memo: DRM is dead.
You don't understand why we have copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
It was handed out to promote the arts. You are not entitled to a never-ending copyright at the expense of consumer's rights. Unfortunately that's what happened and that's what your promoting. If you don't want me to access it don't publish it. Your DRM solutions are just going to ensure I don't pay for it. I have ever right to access content because my rights were violated the day copyright was extended beyond a reasonable length of time. 7 years was already probably excessive. Way more than what was needed to recoup costs and profit off most works.
Re:Anyone noticed (Score:3, Insightful)
By leaving DRM out of the standard for the Web, we could have forced content providers into that same choice: offer DRM-free video at a price, or starve.
Not sure how this is "insightful". Netflix, Apple, VUDU, Amazon, Hulu, etc all have DRM and they are far from "starving". But they are all using a random mishmash of DRM solutions individually developed/licensed/etc. And they will continue to do that as long as there are no standards they all can adopt.
Standardizing DRM in HTML5 is not caving to anyone, I don't know what people keep thinking that. It's just consolidating the APIs so that these providers can create HTML5 web apps that run on more devices without modification. But don't kid yourself that if it didn't exist DRM wouldn't exist. It currently DOESN'T EXIST and DRM is everywhere...
Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so easy. I hate DRM but I'm pretty sure that if this gets passed some customers of mine sooner or later will approach me and ask me funny things like "listen, I know there is a new thing in the web called DRM and I can use it so nobody can look at my HTML code, right? How much does it cost?" And what happens if I tell them they should not use DRM? Simple: somebody else will get the job. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's extremely difficult to put it back in there and all sort of nasty things will happen. Saying goodbye to view source won't be the worst one.
I wonder what *W3C committee members* got in return for that and if we can start a "STOP DRM" campaign and kill this madness.
Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)
W3schools, which you cited, is in no way associated with W3C.
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.
Though it's even more saddening to read W3C's vision on their own site:
Vision
W3C's vision for the Web involves participation, sharing knowledge, and thereby building trust on a global scale. The Web was invented as a communications tool intended to allow anyone, anywhere to share information.
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles [w3.org]
I guess they'll need to amend it to "Trust anyone who has the cash, share with anyone who has enough money."
Why all the fuzz... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't understand all the f-ing fuzz about DRM being added to the standard, as a developer/company you DON'T have to use the DRM on your site, you CAN use it without having to resort to external components which are not available on many platforms.. Well, if you object to having DRM in the standard, then you should also have to object to anything in the standard that replaces stuff like silverlight and flash..
People who are against putting DRM into the standard are just a bunch of morons.. If DRM works correctly as a user you won't have any problems (you can view/read/listen to the content without any problems), DRM mostly becomes a problem if you want to consume some content without willing to pay..
Go make your own content if you don't want to pay for content, see how long you can keep up with spending money but not getting any back..
Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)
you're talking about a piece of black box code that is designed to talk directly to the hardware, and designed so it can override the OS
snowden's whistelblowing made it general knowledge that collusion between all of the big software companies and the US and UK intelligence/spy-communities is common.
does that really seem like good idea to you?
Re:Anyone noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does that matter to me as a user or integrator? It still means that I am locked in to whatever vendor they choose for their DRM. If that vendor chooses not to support my platform, or decides that I am a competitor in some other business so refuses to give me distribution rights to their EME plugin, then I'm stuck.
This is the entire point of the original question in TFA. Netflix gets the ability to (slightly) more easily move between vendors for DRM. What do users get? Nothing. There is no requirement that OMA plugins be interoperable and there is no guarantee of a second source. If Netflix decides to use MS PlayReady, but MS decides that they don't want to support my device because it competes with the Surface or the XBox, then I'm in exactly the same situation as I was with Silverlight.
Re:Why all the fuzz... (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM is not a problem for those who aren't willing to play. Please check The Pirate Bay, and see how much DRM they have.
DRM is a problem for paying customers, one that has in many cases forced people to go to The Pirate Bay, to get the content they paid for (but which had DRM that made it not work). Some of those paying customers came back, but I'm betting that once they'd gotten past the hard part of installing and setting up a BitTorrent client, many more realized how much easier it is to get the DRM free version first, and skip all the DRM trouble.
Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)
By paying the correct toll at the correct tollbooth, and tacitly agreeing that culture is something you "buy" and not "participate in".
> Tim Berners-Lee: DRMed HTML least of all evils
No, Tim, DRMed HTML is a pretty big evil, in that it sabotages an open, readable format by saddling it to an unnecessary rights management monkey.
Let stakeholders in DRM do their own dirty work and see if the public embraces it. The fact that they are going to do so doesn't make it incumbent on web developers and standards bodies to make it more easy for them to do so in a more universal manner.
Check your mandate, Tim.
Re:Tone down your rhetoric (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you ever sing happy birthday to your kids? In a McDonalds maybe? Well what you did was create a public performance of a copyrighted song. How dare you. The original owner of the song didn't give you permission to do that. What about singing this most famous song in a movie? Well that will cost you $10000 [wikipedia.org]
How about a band taking a 10 second snip of a symphonic rendition of a rock song and using it as a riff in their own song? Sorry 100% of all income and royalties [wikipedia.org] now go to the original creator of the song, not even the people who originally performed the symphonic piece.
This is the sad reality of copyright law today. I don't have the rights to other's content, but they sure as heck shouldn't have the rights they do either. Don't argue that this doesn't affect culture either.