SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for boru
Dear Jeff, Tim, and colleagues, In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing "Encrypted Media Extensions," an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem. By doing so, the organization offered the use of its patent pool, its staff support, and its moral authority to the idea that browsers can and should be designed to cede control over key aspects from users to remote parties.
[...] The W3C is a body that ostensibly operates on consensus. Nevertheless, as the coalition in support of a DRM compromise grew and grew — and the large corporate members continued to reject any meaningful compromise — the W3C leadership persisted in treating EME as topic that could be decided by one side of the debate. In essence, a core of EME proponents was able to impose its will on the Consortium, over the wishes of a sizeable group of objectors — and every person who uses the web. The Director decided to personally override every single objection raised by the members, articulating several benefits that EME offered over the DRM that HTML5 had made impossible.
[...] We believe they will regret that choice. Today, the W3C bequeaths an legally unauditable attack-surface to browsers used by billions of people. They give media companies the power to sue or intimidate away those who might re-purpose video for people with disabilities. They side against the archivists who are scrambling to preserve the public record of our era. The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they'll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.
[...] Effective today, EFF is resigning from the W3C.
Thank you,
Cory Doctorow
Advisory Committee Representative to the W3C for the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:05AM (5 children)
People are also worrying because this makes digital restrictions management officially accepted as part of a major standard, which can give the appearance of it being ethical on some level. DRM should be condemned in the harshest terms for restricting users, and especially so by organizations like the W3C.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by melikamp on Tuesday September 19 2017, @08:09AM (4 children)
Thanks, AC. More to the point, EFF is right to run like hell. An ethical equivalent of this fine deed would be a technical standard for torture: "make the ropes this tight, turn so many degrees...", or something like that. WTF is DRM, anyway? It's a pure con, no silver lining. There's no need for DRM on a kiosk-type thingy, as it just does with physical protection. There's no such thing as DRM on a personal computer, because that thing just does whatever I tell it to, thank you very much libreware. The only place DRM is even feasible is a sleazy rental that spies on you for no other reason than you are trapped by an oppressive government or an equally oppressive market force, or (sigh) you are channeling Homer Simpson and just buying the first thing you see advertised on a freeway. In that last case, we can't really help, just as we cannot help people who like being tortured, but I do believe most of us are in the much bigger trapped category. And we don't need this standard at all, in fact it's an amazingly brazen insult, rather than a technical standard. And we can do a standard, can't we? And make sure our libreware Web browsers support the real standard, which doesn't start by bending user over? I don't know, talking to some people, I feel a lot of doubt about this, which I find perplexing, as to me it just seems like another fork. adblock plus [wikipedia.org] all over.
Anyways, here's my 2013 email to TBL, I think he might have printed it out and wiped with it, as is his right, but I hope you enjoy it :)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday September 19 2017, @01:03PM (1 child)
My my, the Interwebs tell me you're right. I'd always assumed he had a PhD.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:57PM
Crazier yet, Cory Doctorow isn't a doctor either.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 19 2017, @04:58PM (1 child)
As with most things, the Golden Rule [quoteinvestigator.com] applies.
Who are the members [w3.org] of the W3C? How much do they pay [w3.org] for that privilege? Who else makes monetary contributions [w3.org] to the W3C?
When you answer (you're welcome) those questions, the people upon whom pressure needs to be brought becomes clear.
Tim Berners-Lee is a figurehead. Those that matter are the ones paying the bills.
Many of the members might have an interest in opposing DRM and many members have a vested interest in supporting DRM.
Individuals are not members of the W3C, it's corporations and other organizations who pay anywhere from US $2,250.00 to US $77,000.00 (depending on the size of the organization) in the US (I didn't investigate other countries, but you can at the W3C Membership costs link [w3.org] I posted above). These folks aren't just giving away their money because they want to make the world a better place, they're doing so to achieve specific goals which, for many of these companies, includes DRM.
IMHO, letter writing campaigns and negative publicity are completely useless for an organization which survives on contributions from many who not only support DRM, but feel that their business models depend upon it.
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but that's the way I see it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Tuesday September 19 2017, @06:24PM