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: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 19 2017, @02:27PM (2 children)
Much about this decision is disappointing.
The technically savvy aren't standing their ground. DRM is a broken concept at a very fundamental level. Anyone can copy a DRM protected item to unprotected media, breaking the DRM for everyone. More than that, anyone can disable obedience to copy protection directives, creating a device that can easily copy all DRM protected items to unprotected states. And, it is extremely easy, and well known. For instance, any child old enough to read could simply hand type the letters of a DRM protected book into a word processor. So why aren't the tech savants pounding these points home on these ownership bozos? Information cannot be owned, not in the same sense that a material good can be owned. Considering their extensive track record, I can understand Microsoft being stupid enough to accept the ownership propaganda and aligning themselves with Big Media. MS has been chummy with them since before Windows XP and the "phone home" misfeature introduced therein. Think they can protect Windows and MS Office from piracy, at least a little bit, But the W3C? What's their game?
They appear to have accepted this silly argument that while DRM can't stop piracy, it is enough of a barrier that it's worth doing. Helps bolster the ownership propaganda. Perhaps this is just throwing them a pointless bone, knowing that the DRM cannot work. Perhaps it's the idea of destroy them by giving them what they want. If so, not worth it.
What embracing DRM has done is waste time and resources. Devices that handle HDMI video have this HD Content Protection piggybacked on the HDMI capability. It's a contractual requirement. So everyone has to pay a little more money, a hidden invisible levy, to support a system that has no other purpose than to restrict and deny content to its owners (which they are trying hard to turn into lessees), and which works poorly. Often gets the restrictions wrong, and cannot stop piracy.
The ownership propaganda has worked entirely too well. Any time they can sucker consumers into accepting lock in, they apparently win another battle. But humanity loses. Is the vast knowledge civilization has discovered and accumulated over millennia of study and experimentation soon to be put on the auction block, access rights to be sold off? Textbook publishers would like that. 2 + 2 = $4 please. You may pay by credit card, isn't that so convenient and nice that we allow you to pay by credit card?
(Score: 1) by AssCork on Tuesday September 19 2017, @08:27PM (1 child)
And don't mind the extra processing fee when you pay with a digital method - also, we bulk-upload transactions once a month to avoid the fee the card-processor's charges us (which we've "passed-on" to you).
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @09:03PM
I'm gonna need you to pop on over here, I need you to stem the flow of ... stuff.