W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
boingboing.net
W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
1–10 of 314 posts
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#2How will this work with open-source browsers like Firefox? After all, what's to stop somebody from publishing an extension or even a modified version of the browser itself? DRM seems fundamentally unenforceable, after all.
Are the people pushing for this hoping it's just too much hassle?
These questions aren't rhetorical: I'm interested in what exactly the DRM people are pushing and how they expect it to work. Just not interested enough to read about it myself :D. (Also, I think this makes for a great conversation topic.)
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#3The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]:
"A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's a Web where user agents—browsers—must navigate a nest of enforced duties every time they visit a page. It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable."
They suggest the W3C may be digging itself into another hole like the one that led to the formation of WHATWG. A good read.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standard...
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#4I don't see it taking too long for someone to make an open source DRM-free browser that just ignores the HTML 5 DRM functionality.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#5I don't see it taking too long for someone to make an open source DRM-free browser that just ignores the HTML 5 DRM functionality.
Would that be possible? Then can this still be called DRM?
Edit: How can it be DRM if the algorithms/formats/protocols are open? Or aren't they open?
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#6The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]: "A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's…
What is the WHATWG's position on this? They represent the browser makers. If they support DRM then it's game over. Another break-away standards group won't be able to do anything to sway the browser makers. What could they do?
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#7How will this work with open-source browsers like Firefox? After all, what's to stop somebody from publishing an extension or even a modified version of the browser itself? DRM seems fundamentally unenforceable, after all. Are the people pushing for this hoping it's just too much hassle? These questions aren't rhetorical: I'm interested in what exactly the DRM people are pushing and how they expect it to work. Just n…
Most likely there was a lot of lobbying for this to happen. People with big money but no clue about how the internet really works.
I'm quite surprised to see Tim Berners-Lee approve this in fact, I wonder what made him say yes to this.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#8The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]: "A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's…
This news makes me so sad. Also: The more things progress, the more and more sense RMS makes.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#9I don't see it taking too long for someone to make an open source DRM-free browser that just ignores the HTML 5 DRM functionality.
Would that be possible? Then can this still be called DRM? Edit: How can it be DRM if the algorithms/formats/protocols are open? Or aren't they open?
No, not unless the browser found a way to give false positives when EME asks for DRM validation.
Re: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
#10The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]: "A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's…
> It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable.
I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does not imply that browsers have to adhere to it. If they didn't they simply wouldn't be able to access DRM protected content. From a UX perspective this seems no different from Netflix putting their content behind a login. Maybe I am being an idiot, if so please correct me, but this doesn't really seem like anything to worry about. The threats implied by EFF, that massive corporations will control content on the internet, seems only true for content published by those massive corporations (and thus are already happening now, with 3rd party DRM ie: Netflix's Silverlight player). It doesn't stop people from publishing non DRM protected content.
I would agree this doesn't belong in the spec on technical level, but it seems to be inclusive not exclusive.