SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), a mechanism by which HTML5 video providers can discover and enable DRM providers offered by a browser, has taken the next step on its contentious road to standardization. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the standards body that oversees most Web-related specifications, has moved the EME specification to the Proposed Recommendation stage.
The next and final stage is for the W3C's Advisory Committee to review the proposal. If it passes review, the proposal will be blessed as a full W3C Recommendation.
Ever since W3C decided to start working on a DRM proposal, there have been complaints from those who oppose DRM on principle. The work has continued regardless, with W3C director and HTML inventor Tim Berners-Lee arguing that—given that DRM is already extant and, at least for video, unlikely to disappear any time soon—it's better for DRM-protected content to be a part of the Web ecosystem than to be separate from it.
Berners-Lee argued that, for almost all video providers, the alternative to DRM in the browser is DRM in a standalone application. He also argued that these standalone applications represent a greater risk to privacy and security than the constrained, sandboxed environment of the Web. He acknowledges that DRM has problems, chiefly the difficulties it imposes for fair use, derivative works, and backups. He notes, however, that a large body of consumers don't appear overly concerned with these issues, as they continue to buy or subscribe to DRM-protected content.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:23PM
There's nothing contradictory about it at all.
"The fact that it's open source means that you (or anybody else) can fork Firefox and remove the EME code if you really want to. I'll bet somebody will."
That remedy remains legally available, in theory, but it's not actually a remedy for this problem.
I understand this is a subtle point, it's taken me years to grasp it, but the problem here is not just technical, it's largely social and legal. It may make relatively little technical difference, to someone that is technically literate, but it has a tremendous influence on the behavior of those who are not, and once they have been herded into place the rest of us are effectively disempowered and silenced.
As an example, let's suppose there is a media file produced by the government which I have every legal right to see - but they choose to publish it for me using a proprietary DRM system. This is a common problem. When I try to explain to them that this method of 'publication' fails, it's MUCH easier for me to explain, not just to them, but to everyone else that might have influence or input as well, it's MUCH easier to get them to see the issue if it's NOT using some sort of published 'standard' to legitimize itself. It shouldn't be, it wouldn't be if we were all technically literate, but the fact nonetheless remains, it IS.
So it's vitally important that this sort of thing be blocked from incorporation in any sort of open standard. Regardless of the technical facts, in the popular mind, this grants the scum an aura of legitimacy, and often even cuts off our right to object in any way.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?