×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The W3C Sells Out Users Without Seeming To Get Anything In Return

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the deal-of-the-century dept.

DRM 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

348 comments

Some questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098005)

How high do I jump?
How much of spoils of corruption can I get out of this?
How long before W3C's reputation is ruined?
Has W3C jumped the shark?

Re:Some questions (5, Interesting)

Moblaster (521614) | about 6 months ago | (#45098145)

The question of what "we" get is not very meaningful until there is an actual "we." And if you are talking about programmers making mass-scale demands of any significance, you first need to have a common base of opinion for that mass to have a unified voice. Now let me ask you -- if programmers were inclined to join together in this kind of way, wouldn't that first have expressed itself as some kind of coherent economic grouping like -- say -- a union? I'm sure there are a few unionized programmers out there ... uh... somewhere... but I've personally never met one, ever.

So if they won't do this for a core economic interest (salary, working conditions) then how realistic is this idea that there would be some kind of coherent constituency agititating for something "in return" for DRM? Because as it turns out, quite a few programmers benefit from being employed by companies with a stake in DRM. And that is, on some level, almost every for-profit company on the internet which makes it business selling proprietary information (content, programs, web services). Which is just about everyone, besides the relatively small proportion of economic activity at companies relying on open-source business models.

This is not about programmers at all. If anyone is going to complain, it's "consumers." There are a lot more of them, and the population of potential complainers is much larger. Whether or not that means diddly squat in a major capitalist system where all the for-profit internet-connected companies really, truly ARE a significantly incentivized interest group that pretty much like the perceived benefits of DRM... well, color me skeptical about that.

Re:Some questions (4, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 6 months ago | (#45098413)

Consumer opinion only matters if all of the following are true:
  • consumers are well-informed
  • consumers are intelligent and act in their own interests
  • consumers have alternate choices

Re:Some questions (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#45098711)

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.

Re:Some questions (5, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 6 months ago | (#45098475)

How long before W3C's reputation is ruined?

The W3C's says themselves that their reason for existence is to standardize the Web to be "accessible to all users (despite differences in culture, education, ability, resources, and physical limitations)" http://www.w3schools.com/w3c/w3c_intro.asp [w3schools.com]

The reason for DRM's existence is to limit web content to those users who have the money (resources) to pay for it.

W3C's endorsement of DRM is antithetical to W3C's own clearly stated values, and shows that they are no longer a fit group to determine web standards. So yes, as you say by doing this, they have ruined their reputation.

Has W3C jumped the shark?

"Jumping the shark" is an idiom that describes the moment when a brand, design, or creative effort's evolution loses the essential qualities that initially defined its success and begins its decline into irrelevance.

So yes, since W3C has lost the "essential qualities that initially defined its success" as a result of their decision to endorse an internet segregated by wealth, they have clearly met the criteria to be shark jumpers.

a happy internet programmer (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#45098601)

just dropped in to say 'hell yeah' to your comments...and express my joy that the W3C is being rightly criticized in this manner

as an internet programmer (ok 'web developer' if you must) I don't trust the W3C's policies and approach to standards...

as to when the W3C 'jumped the shark'...IMHO it was the HTML4 fiasco resulting in WHATWG breaking off and forming HTML5 [wikipedia.org]

when Google, Firefox, M$, etc went to HTML5 it was over, in my estimation...

HTML needed to improve and the W3C *couldn't do it*...

Anyone noticed (4, Informative)

djupedal (584558) | about 6 months ago | (#45098019)

. . . we won the DRM wars? All the major stores are DRM-free. Obviously tho, some people don't really like music - they just like being self-righteous on the internet. (That's right, I ripped off xkcd 546 AND 849

Re:Anyone noticed (5, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 6 months ago | (#45098031)

music, maybe. It's video that is a nightmare right now

Re:Anyone noticed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098161)

music, maybe. It's video that is a nightmare right now

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:Anyone noticed (5, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 6 months ago | (#45098269)

I'm not sure you're attributing this victory to the right cause. I think it's a lot more simple: regardless of the DRM employed, piracy still worked fine. No DRM scheme has ever survived in the wild for any viable period of time, which has made the entire exercise moot. The stores slowly realized that they could make just about the same amount of money without investing into often costly DRM schemes, and as a bonus they'd get free publicity from savvier users saying just how great they were for not putting DRM on their tracks.

Re:Anyone noticed (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098525)

Yeah, except that that's totally wrong.

How many people pirated Nintendo 64 games? I mean, back before they had computers capable of running the ROMs.

Physical cartridges prevented piracy; GameCube DVDs spin the wrong way to be read and written by consumer equipment; and eventually, they will be able to prevent piracy on PCs, by destroying them.

Piracy is not an answer. Piracy is worse than not an answer, it helps the enemy. Every time someone pirates a song instead of using a free one, it cements the copyrighted song's market dominance and prevent free songs from becoming popular.

If you must use proprietary software, or songs backed by labels, or mass-market movies, it's better to pirate them. But the only way to support freedom is to support freedom.

Re:Anyone noticed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098785)

Got news for you, sunshine. The crowd I hung out with had pirated *Atari 2600* cartridges back in the day. This was around 1982-83. You needed a basic board with pins that fit the cartridge slot and equipped with a ZIF socket, and a foam lined case to hold your ePROM chips with the games on them. No special engineering knowledge, per se, required - not if you knew someone with a development kit that could spin down the cartridge ROMs and then dump the code into the ePROM.

So, no, physical cartridges did not prevent piracy.

The rest of your post is wrong as well. "Supporting freedom" =/= obtaining free beer. There are reasons why Budweiser is still the number one beer in the United States instead of homebrewing, too, that go beyond simple economics or knowledge of method.

Re:Anyone noticed (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#45098291)

Apple's AAC fell to the wayside

AAC has nothing to do with DRM. And Apple still uses AAC for its DRM-free music as well.

Re:Anyone noticed (2)

foniksonik (573572) | about 6 months ago | (#45098515)

FairPlay is what the parent was thinking of. It's the DRM that limits you to 5 device authorizations but with unlimited lossy "burns" and 10 playlists with unlimited "burns".

It actually wasn't that burdensome - some might say "fair" but the reality was/is that people are happy with lossy lower quality mp3s so the unlimited part was a loophole that voided the DRM in practice. Apple abandoned it ASAP and opted to simply make buying tracks easier than pirating them. Worked pretty well.

Re:Anyone noticed (1, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | about 6 months ago | (#45098661)

What forced DRM out of the music industry was Apple's market dominance of the MP3 player market with the iPod. The record companies were afraid that the Apple iTunes store was going to become such a dominant player in the digital music business that they would loose all their power. The only way to break iTunes was to allow another competitor (in this case Amazon) to offer a music store that was DRM free (as only Apple can produce DRM audio for the iPod). Once Amazon was up and running the studios offered Apple the ability to offer DRM free (and IIRC higher quality) audio but they had to change the model (i.e. no more "one price for every song")

As for the situation with DRM video, if HTML DRM isn't possible all that will happen is that video providers will continue to use Flash, Silverlight or another proprietary plugin (or make their own app)

Re:Anyone noticed (1)

cshark (673578) | about 6 months ago | (#45098763)

I like Netflix. But I don't like Netflix more than I like the web.

It's a false dichotomy to assume that having DRM in the standard makes the web any more or less free. What you get it useless, easily bipassable security features that placates content providers for the time being. At some point, I think they're all going to give up DRM, and we'll regard it as silly as the pay walls nobody ever uses, that are built into the http.

DRM doesn't change anything meaningful.
You still have a choice as to whether or not you're going to use it on your site. If you don't like DRM, fine. Don't implement it. The web will not cease to exist because people want to stream movies on Netflix using standards compliant code.

Re:Anyone noticed (2)

guises (2423402) | about 6 months ago | (#45098589)

I'd say it's video games, and we seem to have all but lost that one. Video game DRM is not only more ubiquitous now, but has gotten worse. Steam has normalized the idea of software activation, and even more onerous schemes, like continuous activation, have gained traction and willful double-think when paired with high-profile releases like Diablo 3 (best selling game of 2012).

There are some holdouts, but the Humble Bundle is selling DRMed games now so that really only leaves Good Old Games if you want something DRM free. And they only do old games and indies.

Re: Anyone noticed (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 6 months ago | (#45098633)

Video games are a drop in the bucket, many more people watch video than play games. When talking about browse based drm, I definitely think video

Re: Anyone noticed (2)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 6 months ago | (#45098097)

We won the downloadable music DRM wars, you mean. (And possibly the downloadable video one, as well; I'm not involved, so I don't know the state of that.) The streaming video DRM war, however, is very much unwon. What should be as simple* as "provide authentication credentials, receive video stream" has been complicated to permit the provider to distinguish between viewing on set-top boxen, "normal" PCs, and mobile devices, so they can charge different amounts and/or have different content available. *This is particularly true for subscription-based (watch any content number of times while your subscription is valid) or library-based (watch particular content any number of times as long as it's in your library) services -- any service letting you pay once to view once, and pay again if you want to view again, gets a little more complicated, to handle connection droppage, etc., but still doesn't need the DRM they actually use. Since all the real services I have any interest in are in the first two classes, this is an academic point to me, but I don't know if other streaming services may be literally pay-per-view.

Re: Anyone noticed (2)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 6 months ago | (#45098157)

And now with proper formatting...

We won the downloadable music DRM wars, you mean. (And possibly the downloadable video one, as well; I'm not involved, so I don't know the state of that.)

The streaming video DRM war, however, is very much unwon. What should be as simple* as "provide authentication credentials, receive video stream" has been complicated to permit the provider to distinguish between viewing on set-top boxen, "normal" PCs, and mobile devices, so they can charge different amounts and/or have different content available.

*This is particularly true for subscription-based (watch any content number of times while your subscription is valid) or library-based (watch particular content any number of times as long as it's in your library) services -- any service letting you pay once to view once, and pay again if you want to view again, gets a little more complicated, to handle connection droppage, etc., but still doesn't need the DRM they actually use. Since all the real services I have any interest in are in the first two classes, this is an academic point to me, but I don't know if other streaming services may be literally pay-per-view.

(This just in, /.'s mobile interface sucks.)

Re:Anyone noticed (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#45098241)

The internet will just flow around the sites like paywalls. The brands using the tech will be interfacing with peoples computers and their user experience.
The content producers seem to hope they can out bandwidth and out price any 3rd party web 2.0 rental or shop with quality, cost and convenience.
Do the DRM from the content producer people understand the reality of HFC and optical cable networks?
They will have locked away broadcast content on their networks. Recall http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/14/foxtel-locks-up-game-of-thrones-no-more-fast-tracked-itunes-downloads/ [delimiter.com.au]
Web based DRM is not only taking over the end users computer its messing with existing global monopoly pricing structures too :)
Sell the next must watch series direct or wait until regional cable networks allow you to sell direct with DRM on the internet?
If you have been gifted a regional monopoly pricing structure would you allow some distant firm to sell DRM content direct to your captive public first?
Its quality lobbying time. Wont someone think of the tax base, online privacy, hackers, inappropriate content, DRM used for self radicalisation broadcasts, and all the local jobs?

Without DRM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098021)

Without DRM nobody will use it... Companies won't make their content free just because there is no DRM, they will find another way

Re:Without DRM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098055)

I'm OK with that. Perhaps they could do something innovative for a change.

Re:Without DRM... (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#45098183)

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.

DRM is bad... but plugins are worse... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098325)

Without DRM nobody will use it... Companies won't make their content free just because there is no DRM, they will find another way

Until recently I was also fairly convinced that browser vendors shouldn't implement EME... To be honest I don't know anymore.

I hate DRM just as much as the next guy, but there are a few points to consider:

  • Most browser already support DRM through plugins, such as flash
  • EME modules are sandboxed,
  • Current plugins can do ANYTHING,
  • Serving DRM'ed content will still be a major pain,
  • We might get content on Linux
  • DRM won't last forever,*

* DRM won't last forever, because when streaming is Hollywoods primary source of income, they'll find that expense to actually stream DRM'ed content are significant, and they can save a lot of money by not doing this... Also DRM-free streaming is less buggy and gives a better user experience. That said I'm still not sure I want DRM, but we already have flash, silverlight, Widevine, these can do a lot more that just DRM as they are not sandboxed.
Anyways, I've at least realized that there more than just pro/con-DRM to EME.

Re:DRM is bad... but plugins are worse... (1)

unrtst (777550) | about 6 months ago | (#45098495)

This is all the more reason NOT to add a DRM standard for HTML 5.

Flash, for example, can do what they want already. From the average user perspective, what's the difference? It also allows them to continue their split of set-top content vs PC content (though that's really stupid). It's not much more difficult to work with from the developer side either... in many ways, it's easier (ex. browser compatibility and fallbacks).

The majority of the content producers could/should care less. By that, I mean the major networks and such. Netflix and Hulu are no real threat because they can take away access at any time, and they control the releases and availability. And then look at HBOGo, which should be an independent offering, but you MUST sign up for HBO through your TV provider - why not let people buy it on its own? None of the tech matters at this point because they don't really care about availability and access and standards - they're not even letting you get what you want to pay for - so they can force you to use flash or silverlight or whatever they want, and, for now, they don't care if you say no.

This, w3c approved DRM, isn't going to change anything for the better. What I do think it will do is open up use of DRM on much of the content that is currently available without it: personal websites, band sites, youtube, porn sites, etc.

I'll stick with your former opinion: browser vendors shouldn't implement EME. Maybe a new plugin API is in order.

Re:DRM is bad... but plugins are worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098639)

We might get content on Linux

We already have that. And it doesn't take any Flash or Silverlight. Not many people sell it yet, but Louie C.K. released a new for-sale video just yesterday. For everyone else who doesn't sell videos yet, we have .. well, torrents, and you know (the thing where the first rule is that you don't talk about it). All of that content works flawlessly on Linux. You know why? Because unlike DRMed stuff, it's STANDARDIZED.

DRM means no-linux or maybe-linux. Not-DRM means "it reliably works with Linux, every time." All of this is 100% perfect (except that most content creators don't accept money yet) right now. We already won; we just need to persuade the Hollywood not-for-profit "businesses" to open up and start accepting money.

When content creators start thinking like real businesses and decide they want customers' money, all this DRM nonsense will blow away in the wind of commerce.

Re:Without DRM... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#45098393)

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:Without DRM... (3, Insightful)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 6 months ago | (#45098467)

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.

Benefit to the committee members (2)

stox (131684) | about 6 months ago | (#45098049)

Cushy consulting gigs at the content producers/distributors.

Re:Benefit to the committee members (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098113)

Or money?

Re:Benefit to the committee members (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098395)

(-1, Redundant)

Tone down your rhetoric (1, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 6 months ago | (#45098053)

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.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098141)

It's pretty obvious the content owners (not makers, authors, or creators, by in large) will insist on DRM for all their content, when it benefits just about nobody except them. The DRM battle was nearly won, and now W3C is actively undermining this societal progress.

It's not about "your website", it's about your access to culture that is increasingly consolidated among a few large corporate players due to the chicanery of copyright law. DRM is about controlling the playback, locking out certain uses and users.

I'd say that this will just push even more traffic to the torrents, but the NSA will probably divulging the correlated info for torrents soon enough.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098165)

culture that is increasingly consolidated among a few large corporate players due to the chicanery of copyright law.

So ignore all that. There's a HUGE variety of indie music, video games, movies, and more. Support them with your dollars/euros/whatever, they deserve it. Ignore the "few large corporate players". Fuck 'em. Who needs their crap, when the best stuff comes from small creative indie studios anyway?

Seriously. The gaming scene is all about indies these days: the "big corporate players" just crank out the same old shit with better graphics. It's utter crap compared to the best indies. Same for music. Same for movies: who needs part 17 of the same old idiotic summer blockbuster?

Those big corporate players only exist because you let them. The culture they spew is insipid. Ignore them, and they'll go away. The only have the power you give them.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (4, Interesting)

agm (467017) | about 6 months ago | (#45098367)

It's pretty obvious the content owners (not makers, authors, or creators, by in large) will insist on DRM for all their content, when it benefits just about nobody except them. The DRM battle was nearly won, and now W3C is actively undermining this societal progress.

It's not about "your website", it's about your access to culture that is increasingly consolidated among a few large corporate players due to the chicanery of copyright law.

You make it sound as if I have a right to the content other people produce. I don't and never did. I don't consider it to be "culture" either.

DRM is about controlling the playback, locking out certain uses and users.

I'd say that this will just push even more traffic to the torrents, but the NSA will probably divulging the correlated info for torrents soon enough.

If the content producer hasn't given you permission to consume their content, then you have no right to seek it elsewhere. If I cannot watch a movie through legal channels then I don't watch the movie. Same thing with TV shows and music. I don't consider respecting other peoples' rights to be very onerous, and I don't think I'm missing out on much.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098181)

If they want DRM they're free to do their own extension, but it does not belongs in the open standard.
You give these psychopaths a hand and they'll take your whole arm.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (0)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 6 months ago | (#45098263)

Says who?

The WORST thing you can do to someone is silence dissent.

Also, the W3C is not publishing DRM. They are allowing a Working Group to consider a specification for encrypted media - it does not involve "content protection" in any way, shape, or form. It's no different than Encrypted XML for encrypting credit card numbers.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098185)

Because DRM is a pain, makes both the web and the browser slow, and gets nothing for the user. Oversized corporations (the ones who are not paying the bills for bandwidth) are the only ones who stand to gain, and they gain little. In short: the user gets less, pays more. How am I supposed to be happy again?

Tone up your rhetoric (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098189)

"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:Tone up your rhetoric (0)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#45098315)

and the websites can use it without his explicit permission.

Then he can *gasp* not visit that website.

Re:Tone up your rhetoric (5, Informative)

Windwraith (932426) | about 6 months ago | (#45098351)

You don't need to visit facebook to get facebook trackers. Just sayin'.

Re:Tone up your rhetoric (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098401)

You don't need to visit facebook to get facebook trackers. Just sayin

The trackers are served from facebook's address blocks. iptables drop packets to/from facebook, and the trackers won't be loaded.

Until such time as they are hosted natively on many other domains, your computer must connect to facebook for them to track you with the "like" buttons, which is what I assume you're talking about.

Re:Tone up your rhetoric (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098405)

"Then he can *gasp* not visit that website."

I've never visited doubleclick.net, yet I see it keeps trying to put cookies in my browser. *gasp*. Thankfully my browser throws them away because my browser acts in my interests. *gasp* I'm suggesting that my browser should always act in my interests and this should be turned off by default. *gasp*.

I'm also suggesting my country (UK) has an off switch that is off by default. And GCHQ didn't get the Snoopers Charter switch turned on. That switch is still off and they should quit spying on us for a foreign power and covering up their crime with secrecy, scaremongering and attacks on journalists.

Re:Tone up your rhetoric (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#45098689)

They are forcing it into his browser by declaring it a standard, and the websites can use it without his explicit permission.

To the extent that they "standardize" the DRM functionality; the browser could implement just enough of the DRM to decrypt and playback the content, and allow the user to save the decrypted version.

What does it really mean to say you have software-based use restrictions in freely patchable freely-extensible open source browser software?

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (2)

complete loony (663508) | about 6 months ago | (#45098217)

Browsers already have standards for embedding 3rd party plugins into pages. This new DRM scheme neither adds nor removes anything from that capability. Browsers will still need to hand over control of the decoding to 3rd party code. Perhaps the interface between browser and external code, or the method for specifying the content in html will be simpler. But this addition doesn't really change anything.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#45098313)

What happens when a search engine adds a result bounce to DRM content sites? "Nobody is forcing you to use DRM on your website" but without aspects of the new DRM tech your site might sink way lower when searched for.
Like an old TV comedy sketch:
"Oh see my search engine is clumsy Colonel, and when it gets unprofitable it down ranks things. Like say, it don't feel your sites paying fair, it may start delisting sites....
Delistings happen, Colonel
Sites vanish.
My brother and I have got a little DRM for you Colonel.

Rhetoric is well-justified if far too accepting. (4, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | about 6 months ago | (#45098341)

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:Tone down your rhetoric (4, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 6 months ago | (#45098343)

Adding something to an open standard is "selling out"? WTF? Calm down and get a sense of perspective before posting these stories,

The W3C's stated purpose is:

"Standardizing the Web

W3C is working to make the Web accessible to all users (despite differences in culture, education, ability, resources, and physical limitations)"

http://www.w3schools.com/w3c/w3c_intro.asp [w3schools.com]

DRM's purpose is to limit web content to those users who have the money (resources) to pay for it.

Their endorsement of DRM is antithetical to W3C's own clearly stated values, and shows that they are no longer a fit group to determine web standards. If anything, the "rhetoric" should be scaled up until they retract their approval of a restrictive internet.

DRM makes more free media likely, not less (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#45098383)

DRM's purpose is to limit web content to those users who have the money (resources) to pay for it.

That is utter bullshit.

There will be a tone of free DRM'ed content, just as there is today.

The DRM will in fact make MORE free content likely because the people giving out the content will feel more assured that people cannot copy it. A false assurance, but that's what will happen.

It also allows for more paid content too - but it's hardly for the rich as you imply, Netflix is very cheap for example and with a proper DRM standard they could move away from Silverlight and just use browser DRM.

Video providers ALREADY use DRM in browsers today. Why are you and others thinking it's WORSE to have a standard for this instead of having the node-podge of Flash and other solutions we have today? We are you not rushing to support something that can kill both Flash and Silverlight in one fell swoop?

Re:DRM makes more free media likely, not less (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098487)

Utter BS. this is not just about "audio" or "video" - this is a giant barn door for every other fucker who want to protect their precious content. Which includes stuff like news and the very fonts used - and we already have a problem with people not being as informed as they ought to be (like you!) without *actually* putting in any efforts in excluding people through technology with no other legitimate purpose.

Re:DRM makes more free media likely, not less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098681)

Do you care to back up this claim, or is it sufficient just to say it?

Re:DRM makes more free media likely, not less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098723)

Does EFF satisfy? "We pointed out that EME would by no means be the last "protected content" proposal to be put forward for the W3C's consideration. EME is exclusively concerned with video content, because EME's primary advocate, Netflix, is still required to wrap some of its film and TV offerings in DRM as part of its legacy contracts with Hollywood. But there are plenty of other rightsholders beyond Hollywood who would like to impose controls on how their content is consumed.

Just five years ago, font companies tried to demand DRM-like standards for embedded Web fonts. These Web typography wars fizzled out without the adoption of these restrictions, but now that such technical restrictions are clearly "in scope," why wouldn't typographers come back with an argument for new limits on what browsers can do?"

or are they just a bunch of lying hippies?

Re:DRM makes more free media likely, not less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098773)

Well, right now, video seems to be the last hold out. Everyone else has already given up. And - like the grandparent implied - it would be helpful if you provided links to your tenuous argument.

Re:DRM makes more free media likely, not less (4, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about 6 months ago | (#45098543)

The DRM will in fact make MORE free content likely because the people giving out the content will feel more assured that people cannot copy it.

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.

Video providers ALREADY use DRM in browsers today. Why are you and others thinking it's WORSE to have a standard for this instead of having the node-podge of Flash and other solutions we have today? We are you not rushing to support something that can kill both Flash and Silverlight in one fell swoop?

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:DRM makes more free media likely, not less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098737)

obligatory http://xkcd.com/927/

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098365)

The problem is pretty obvious, this is how they want to implement DRM, this will lead to people being forced to use DRM as a standard. It is just as important to fight it now, and make sure big media doesn't gets it way and force it as a standard for everyone.

I can understand people choosing to use it, and that is the way it should stay. I'm not on high alert (if you will) over it, but it becomes concerning when certain bodies are giving in to it.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (0)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 6 months ago | (#45098419)

Verbose mode on, if I may, to illustrate why it's crap.

[T]he piece that keeps me shaking my head and wondering is a question he asks but doesnâ(TM)t answer:

That's because he clearly said the meetings and committees are intended to answer that question. If it had been answered already, we wouldn't need the W3C working groups to find an answer.

the W3Câ(TM)s new focus on digital rights management (DRM).

New since dinosaurs walked the earth? This has been kicked around for long enough that if you think it's new, or a focus, you need to get your brain checked.

âoeuniversal in that it can contain anythingâ, rather than being universal in that its content can be read by anyone.

Heavy stuff. Does the web already contain DRM, and users who watch movies at home? My coworker on Netflix says yes. The rest of us? We're not paying big content so big content doesn't care about the rest of us. They are still going to put DRM out there, and as Tim said and you didn't read, you can't stop DRM from existing just by not talking about it.

What are you objecting to exactly? Your personal philosophy being violated? Lots of people have no problem phrasing it that way, instead of pulling horseshit arguments out of the air. I'm sure the argument seems good to you, but you already agree with you. And you need to convince people who disagree, are on the fence, don't care, or actively seek out flaws in an argument to decide which argument is stronger.

What are we users â" and what is the W3C â" getting from building the risk of programmers being jailed into the core infrastructure of the Web? ... Does that make it a good idea for the W3C to offer its name, its facilities, its intellectual property agreements, and its umbrella from antitrust prosecution to such a project? Why not leave the companies to pursue their own directions, and take on the risk of legal action themselves?

I'm going with goofy loon, and can't be arsed to see what Simon means here, because it has been random word salad to this point.

Iâ(TM)m left, however, with Berners-Leeâ(TM)s failure to answer his own question,

because the W3C is going to answer that you stupid fuck

and his strange expectation that users can âoeaskâ for something in return and hope to see it.

So the answer doesn't matter, despite the first half of your rant centering on that? If we can't expect anything, then why does the question that isn't asked matter at all? This is the part of the screed where any cognitive processing has completely broken down. A half-formed argument morphs into a different and competing argument, and Simon believes he has a point. This is the red flag for any argument - internal inconsistency.

Restricted Media Community Group. Itâ(TM)s a place to gather input, but itâ(TM)s a Community Group, and the W3C has no obligation to listen to it

Sooooo, what is your point? The group says something and it gets ignored, and that's a bad thing?

this is yet more reason to pick and choose the useful bits carefully.

Like everyone always did since ever?

What do we get for that DRM? A clear sign that weâ(TM)re not to be trusted.

We aren't to be trusted. We demonstrate that by downloading stuff from torrents all day, every day. We have also shown that a reasonable market that makes it easier to pay and get good quality, useful content will get the dollars. Of nearly anyone, I trust the W3C to come up with a decent proposal that will be ignored at big content's convenience.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 months ago | (#45098439)

It's crap like this that makes me wonder why anyone still reads this site.

Because, years ago, it used to be a great resource to learn about various diverse tech topics and some of us hope that it might, one day, return to that (all the while knowing those days are gone, gone, gone...).

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (5, Insightful)

reub2000 (705806) | about 6 months ago | (#45098471)

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:Tone down your rhetoric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098571)

It's called "selling out" because a standard that you're not allowed to implement, is not a standard.

If HTML5 specs had a section dedicated to Coca Cola, and only Coca Cola were allowed to use anything in that section, you would yell "WTF?" followed by "oh, W3C sold out to Coca Cola." DRM is no less strange. It's not about whether or not DRM is bad or not (though of course it is); just like having Coca Cola in the spec doesn't mean Coca Cola is bad. It's just that it doesn't make any sense in that context.

Standards shouldn't have weird shit in them that zero people want. It's a paid product placement. So of course everyone's "sell out" alarm goes off. Why doesn't yours?

Re:Tone down your rhetoric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098573)

Rhetoric? Really? That's your comeback? Some companies have convinced TBL to give them a pass and gate off their content, thus fragmenting the web even more than it is, and you're response is "what's the big deal?"

Perhaps you should also perform this reality check you seek, because it seems you don't really care what somebody does as long as they slap the words "open standard" on it. They could ask you for a method to freely install whatever software they want on your PC and you wouldn't bat an eye because "hey, it's an open standard!"

b/c we can always just use the *other* internet (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#45098635)

The world is not ending. Nobody is forcing you to use DRM on your website.

absolutely they are...they tried with HTML4.x and were stymied by the WHATWG and HTML5

do you know what the WHATWG is?

everything about their existence and the standardization of HTML5 in the face of W3C's obstruction proves your statement wrong...

start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG [wikipedia.org]

confusion in the blog post (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#45098057)

If you're looking for confusion in the blog post, this sentence seems to capture all of it:

What are we users – and what is the W3C – getting from building the risk of programmers being jailed into the core infrastructure of the Web? I have no doubt that browser vendors eager to cut deals will incorporate DRM into their offerings.

The users don't have anything to bargain with except their eyes, and the W3C is made up from browser vendors, so if he understands why browser vendors want to incorporate DRM, that answers the whole question.

We didn't need considerations... (4, Insightful)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 6 months ago | (#45098063)

I can hear the argument in a few years "We didn't need considerations when we implemented DRM, why should we actually give some now when it could cause problems". Fuck the whole argument, we don't need DRM and we don't need considerations now or later. Leave both out. - HEX

Re:We didn't need considerations... (-1, Troll)

rtaylor (70602) | about 6 months ago | (#45098349)

Of course you don't need DRM. You don't produce content with value.

Producers of content with value want DRM.

Re:We didn't need considerations... (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 6 months ago | (#45098399)

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.

Re:We didn't need considerations... (2, Insightful)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 6 months ago | (#45098443)

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:We didn't need considerations... (3, Insightful)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 6 months ago | (#45098477)

How do you know I don't produce valuable content? I produce valuable (copyright) material, writings, pics, videos, and more, and I don't want DRM. Costs money to create new original content, yet no DRM on *anything* I've produced, and I want money for what I've produced. Even making it freely available to view on my website and youtube I still want money for certain uses and still hold the copyright. - HEX

Not even a reacharound in return. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098069)

So they get to install this rootkit I cant remove before watching a video, fantastic. Did they at least standardize the rootkit? I'd love to know how many are going to be stuck in my bios, and what other abilities are allowed.

TV 2.0 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098087)

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:TV 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098255)

Before the authorities were aware of it? Are you not aware if DARPA's influence on the early net?

Ridiculous.

Re:TV 2.0 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098289)

He said authoritarians, not authorities.

Get In Return? (5, Funny)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | about 6 months ago | (#45098091)

That is probably one of the most idiotic things I have read in some time. You either allow it or you dont. What is there to trade? Its like saying.. well.. we'll let you have the H1 tag.. but you gotta let us have the HR tag.. what??

Re:Get In Return? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098139)

You'll have to pry the <BLINK> and <MARQUEE> tags out of my dead fingers. The web is worth nothing if I can't annoy the hell out of my viewers.

"Considerations to be discussed later" ??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098119)

But this is all that mister Obama ever says when he is throwing a temper tantrum when negotiating.

Re:"Considerations to be discussed later" ??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098149)

At least Obama doesn't have a small intestine packed solid with Koch Bros' jizz like the republicans do.

alternate internet history (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098147)

Imagine what it would have been like if this mindset had been around when the internet was starting up in the 1970's.

The "standard" for email is just a hook to a blob that won't interoperate with any other. Instead of absolutely anyone being able to read the standard and implement their own mail client, it's locked down, and you can only run them with permission. The blob from one vendor won't work with the mail sent from another. Want to write your own mailer? Sorry, no such luck.

Just try firing up GCC and writing your own DRMed video receiver. You can't do it without permission.

Legimatizing DRM in HTML is a disaster and steps all over the very spirit of openness and cooperation that made the internet what it became.

Well, obviously (1)

bmo (77928) | about 6 months ago | (#45098191)

"Considerations to be discussed later" is rarely a powerful diplomatic pose.'"

No shit. It means those considerations consist entirely, wholly, and purely, of bupkis.

--
BMO

Um, isn't it obvious? (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 6 months ago | (#45098197)

The committee members that push it through will get swanky positions with the industries that benefit from DRM. And since the world economy is crashing and only a few are going to live the good life I suppose I can't blame them...

Take it up with the Internet Society BoT (4, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | about 6 months ago | (#45098209)

The W3C used to be a member (i.e., company) driven organization, but in 2012 they took a large donation from the Internet Society [w3.org] and were basically brought under ISOCs umbrella (they were running out of money) :

“The Internet Society’s generous donation has fueled deep organizational change at W3C,” said Jeff Jaffe, W3C CEO. “We have strengthened our business model and broadened participation to accelerate the development of the Open Web Platform technology that is transforming industry.”

In 2011, one of the ways in which W3C reached out to new stakeholders was through new Community Groups and Business Groups. A W3C Community Group is an open forum, without fees, where Web developers and other stakeholders develop specifications, hold discussions, develop test suites, and connect with W3C's international community of Web experts. A W3C Business Group gives innovators that want to have an impact on the development of the Web in the near-term, a vendor-neutral forum for collaborating with like-minded stakeholders, including W3C Members and non-Members. In just four months, more than fifty groups have been created or proposed.

This does not sound like "deep organizational change at W3C," or particularly open in nature. I think that interested parties should comment / complain to the ISOC Board of Trustees [internetsociety.org].

I know the answer: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098245)

Ooh! I know!

We get a standards-based way to deliver copyrighted media without insecure browser plugins and the hassle of multiple incompatible streaming formats, versions, etc!

And get this - you can choose not to view that content if you feel so strongly about it.

Amazing!

Re:I know the answer: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098275)

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.

Re:I know the answer: (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 6 months ago | (#45098493)

You can do that with HTML5 video because bits don't care about copyright, and you can't do that with EME. There's nothing set in the spec that says the format has to be anything in particular, and saying it's not a plugin doesn't make it not a plugin.

Google and Mozilla (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098293)

As long as Google and Mozilla simply fail to implement DRM, it will be DOA.

Re:Google and Mozilla (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098379)

Google is one of the big backers pushing EME (so Chromebooks can use Netflix; which they already can, but not in a "standard" way).

Mozilla will not be able to implement EME in any meaningful way (the best they can do is blindly load 3rd party binary blobs).

Re: Google and Mozilla (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098381)

Google have already implemented EME-style DRM in ChromeOS with the Widevine blob.

It is disabled when you boot in developer mode, to prevent any shennanigans.

Google won't save you now. They are Big Media.

What's the fuss? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#45098403)

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?

Linus Torvalds sold out, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098449)

By the arguments presented by Mr. St. Laurent, Torvalds sold out Linux by proclaiming long ago that the Linux kernel was DRM-neutral - its architecture and licensing policy neither ruled DRM in or out. Even before that, Torvalds wrote an explicit clause in the Linux GPL v2 license that exempted most applications from the viral free software policies written by Richard Stallman. Why? Well I can't say for sure, but I suspect that being pragmatic folks, neither Mr. Torvalds nor Mr. Berners-Lee are confident they can predict the future of technology, but they do realize that adopting policies that businesses hate will probably have a materially negative effect on the adoption of their babies, and that viable replacements for market leaders spring up faster than anyone would expect, e.g. Friendster => MySpace => Facebook. And once a product loses critical mass, it loses all the network effects that accrue to the market leaders.

Mr. Berners-Lee must have realized that if he explicitly disallowed DRM from HTML5, then the entertainment and publishing industries - including such huge forces as ESPN and other TV networks with contracts for professional and college sports - would start to secede from the WWW, and work-alike alternatives would emerge, only they'd have DRM. Yeah, chances are it would take them a few tries to get it right, but eventually they would, and then this "Entertainment Gold Platform" would be the hot ticket for sports, TV, movies, music, and much more. The non-techies would move there en masse and the techies would follow because money talks. Berners-Lee could well imagine that his WWW could turn into another MySpace (or Minix- whose creator famously refused to "commercialize" his product) as consumers flocked to the Big Content platform.

Without googling, has anyone here heard of a golfer named Matt Fitzpatrick? He's an Englishman who won the 2013 US Amateur golf championship a couple months ago (I happened to attend one day of the event because it was in my metropolitan area). The US Amateur used to be a very big deal, in fact it was considered one of the four "major" golf championships a long time ago. Then money entered the picture, followed by TV, and... now even golf fans pay attention to the US Amateur. That's what could happen to the "free WWW".

Re:Linus Torvalds sold out, too (1)

guruevi (827432) | about 6 months ago | (#45098643)

Microsoft tried to DRM-ize the web (Windows 98). It was called MSN. It didn't work. AOL tried the same. CompuServe tried. History is rife with companies that tried re-implementing the web according to their own standards (Microsoft), DRM-ing it (Macromedia/Adobe) and many companies attempted locking up their content in containers (Flash, ActiveX, Shockwave). It has failed every single time. Programmers can't program against a broken non-standard and users can't keep up with the increased hassle to get to what they want so they'll find it elsewhere.

time to fork W3C? (3, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | about 6 months ago | (#45098523)

So, does this mean it is time to fork W3C and have a more meaningful standards organization?

You misunderstand how the W3C operates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098555)

Here's an excellent, accessible explanation: https://longtermlaziness.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/the-w3c-is-a-restaurant/

Out of the market (3, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | about 6 months ago | (#45098579)

Content owners that make their DRM not work for me (a Linux user) cannot consider me in their market. Therefore they would LOSE NOTHING if I crack the DRM and access their content privately.

I'd get alot out of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45098591)

I'd get alot out it.

Some examples:
-Abilty to play itunes movies/music in your browser without having to install itunes.
-Ability to temporarily share infomation with people while ensuring they can't get exact digital copies.
-Ability to sell your intellecutal information online while keeping it difficult for people to copy it everywhere, thus depleting the pool or potential customers.

The W3C is meant to cater to what people want. And ALOT of non-tehnical people want DRM, as it actually opens up access on locked down content to more devices. Simon basically makes no meanginful claims, apart from arguing that adding these things doesn't help his personal web develop projects.

Since No One Has Pointed It Out Yet (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 6 months ago | (#45098595)

'What do we get for that DRM?'

Did "we" vote on this? Let's look at their members list [w3.org]: Apple, AT&T, Facebook, Csico, Comcast, Cox, Google, Huawei, HP, Intel, LG, Netflix, Verizon, Yahoo!, Zynga and ... The Walt Disney Company. Seriously, are we really so daft that we sit here scratching our heads wondering why a consortium of those players and THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY ended up including DRM? REALLY? There is a bill known as The Mickey Mouse Act in regards to excessive copyright that was passed into US law. And we're wondering how Disney might have influenced DRM as an option in a standard ... they're on the list, folks! Pull your heads out of your asses!

And those are just the companies I recognize that have a serious amount of money to be made on DRM (hello, Netflix?!). If I examine closer, there are much smaller players like, say, Fotosearch Stock Photography and Footage that sound like they would gladly vote for DRM in order to "protect" their products/satiate content owners.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...