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: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:07PM (3 children)
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.
The existence of DRM is in itself a threat against privacy and security, particularly since it often results in crippling the hardware or leaving back doors in so it can be forced (remember the Sony rootkit?). Incorporating it into the HTML standard for the sake of privacy and security is absurd and disingenuous at best, and probably gives corporations yet another toehold into controlling and effectively owning as many computers as they possibly can, including yours, whether you paid for it or not.
...a large body of consumers don't appear overly concerned with these issues, as they continue to buy or subscribe to DRM-protected content.
A lot of customers don't even know DRM exists, and in many cases it's either deal with DRM or piracy (incidentally, compare piracy statistics, plenty of those people aren't paying because of DRM itself).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:16PM (2 children)
World domination has driven Berners-Lee insane. DRM must not be removed from His web because any such attempt will diminish His awesome power.
Worship Berners-Lee for He is Your God.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:42PM (1 child)
But I'm a Bill Atkinson [wikipedia.org] worshiper. :(
You should convert! Worship includes LSD! :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:07PM
Bill Atkinson advocated freeware but not free software. HyperCard was bundled with every Mac, but it wasn't open source. Platform lock-in ensured the web would inevitably eat his lunch.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:11PM (23 children)
given that DRM is already extant and, at least for video, unlikely to disappear any time soon
Stupid argument. It already exists, but we don't like it, so we're going to... help continue its existence by supporting it, instead of hastening its demise by not supporting it?
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:23PM (16 children)
And how exactly do you imagine they are going to hasten it's demise? All evidence is that, for now at least, the overwhelming majority of the population barely knows what it is, much less has any coherent objection to it. And the publishers certainly have no objection.
So, at present the options seem to be:
1) Continue not supporting it, and make everyone continue to deal with crappy insecure DRM plugins and applications that expose them to all kinds of risk
2) Start supporting it, and contain the DRM vulnerabilities within the browser, which should already be going above and beyond to protect the user from many similar threats.
3) Get enough people to completely and vocally boycott DRM that the publishers abandon their quasi-religious commitment to it and make it easy for everyone to copy everything they release.
I *really* don't see 3 happening any time soon - there's just too many people who've got to have their Netflix, etc. fix willing to fund the current DRM regime.
And between 1 and 2 - well I trust the browsers makers with my security a LOT more than the publishers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:28PM (9 children)
You forgot option four. Stop supporting it and do not allow plugins in your browser that do support it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ShadowSystems on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:00PM (1 child)
I wish there was a "Oh HELL YEAH!" or "I'd upvote this by a trillion if I could!" moderation catagory.
I don't accept DRM in my products just like I don't buy food soaked in Bubonic Plague & for the exact same reason - it's unhealthy & will seriously ruin my day.
I won't accept an extension that enables it because the browser is already an insecure cluster fuck as it is, it doesn't need even MORE vectors from which a zero day exploit can render my machine FUBAR.
Do I pirate? No. Do I buy DRM media? No. That's because I vote with my wallet as the only viable way that one of us common folk can give TheFinger to those DRM spreading bastards.
I'd sooner give Typhoid Mary some French kissing than let an MPAA/RIAA fucker near my computer - at least there's less of a social stigma to the plague.
*Moons & gives a double handed TheFinger to the MPAA/RIAA & it's ilk*
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:17PM
Good for you, I approve.
Now, are you doing anything to actually make DRM less prevalent or invasive - such as motivating vast hordes of the techno-incompetent to follow your lead? Because otherwise you're just covering your own ass while virtue-signaling.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pino P on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)
If you practice option four ("Stop supporting it and do not allow plugins in your browser that do support it") alone, you will be considered acceptable collateral damage. The only way for option four to make a noticeable difference is to encourage others to follow you in doing so, which turns it into option three ("Get enough people to completely and vocally boycott DRM").
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:14AM
I was speaking from the point of a browser coder not an end user. It would only take three browser makers blocking any plugins with DRM and there would be no more DRM on the web.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by WillR on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:42PM (2 children)
If the Muggles all install Flash because that's what they have to do to watch Hulu and Amazon and install Silverlight because that's what they have to do to watch Netflix, then the vast majority of browsers have those plugins installed. Then web devs see 90%+ availability for those plugins and start putting other useful non-DRMed content in that format just because. And then we're back to the bad old days of "This website requires Adobe(r) Flash(tm). Click here to install the Flash(tm) plugin." banners everywhere.
Better to put DRM in one standardized plugin that does nothing else. The attack surface is smaller for everyone and the people who want to disable it can, confident that they'll never need to install a fscking plugin just to see whether the 2018 Chevy Whatever is going to have six front-seat cupholders or eight*.
*I have no idea why, but auto manufacturer sites were the absolute worst at requiring 10 megs of Flash to present information that should have been a <table>.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:19PM (1 child)
Then web devs see 90%+ availability for those plugins and start putting other useful non-DRMed content in that format just because.
Soon, all content was DRMed because DRM was ubiquitous and easy. Soon all content was perpetually owned by corporations and only rented to users. Textbooks and knowledge articles were available, but only to those who could pay.
(Score: 2) by WillR on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:44PM
Soon, all content was DRMed because DRM was ubiquitous and easy.
It's about 10 years too late to start worrying about that, Netflix and its associated DRM crap come preloaded on everything from PCs to refrigerators. The question that remains is "do we want to be patching Flash exploits forever, or not?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:06PM
+1000 upvotes as well
Netflix is my only exception, but I have a stand alone device that I can isolate on the network. I have to view it effectively as Netflix's equipment within my network and protect the rest of my network accordingly. All of that original content Netflix is creating? Available for torrenting as well. Which would defeat the convenience factor of Netflix, but also would be without DRM.
Hmmm, how many people out there are offering DRM free product? It's not zero, but it's not enough either. If I could have a system that was completely DRM free? Bye, bye Netflix. I'll still pay you, but I won't actually use you. Just your content without DRM. Ultimately, DRM is an external agent of the Corporate State within your own computing systems. That is intolerable, but put up with by many because of the engineered lack of choices.
No compromising. No settling. No blobs. No binaries. Absolute transparency. Absolute control. That is the only future for personal computing worth fighting for. It is diametrically opposed to DRM since it could never let DRM have more control than the true owner of the device.
If we have to sacrifice for awhile, so be it. Tim Berners-Lee has decided to compromise and that's unfortunate.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:32AM
Also known as the They'll use native applications rather than the web solution.
This is already how 'premium video content streaming' is done on mobile. Netflix already have a desktop Windows app, but most people use a browser instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:09PM
the obvious answer for anyone who isn't a stupid whore is #1. We should continue to make these scum make their shitty plugins and eventually they will become ostracized. it's already happening, it's just going to take a while b/c most people are ignorant slaves that still use slaveware platforms like windows and mac. getting these soda guzzling fat asses to quit paying hollywood for drm'd shit it won't happen over night but making DRM legit will make it nearly impossible.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:59PM (4 children)
Option one is best. It means DRM content remains a second class citizen, with obvious annoyance to the user. DRM content requires tracking down and maintaining special players. DRM content is assured to have problems playing everywhere, again annoying the user. Every security exploit enabled by closed media players and the chronic incompetence and evil of the developers behind them is another blow for liberty. The collateral damage must be considered acceptable losses. This is war; people get hurt in wars. We didn't start this war, we shouldn't ever intentionally harm people who aren't active on the Pro-DRM side, but if we overly concern ourselves with civilian casualties we will lose the war for the Open Internet and the civilians will get boned anyway. Probably forever.
The more annoying DRM content is the more attractive the content from the guys flying the Jolly Roger becomes. This dynamic succeeded in breaking the music industry, there is no reason to believe it won't work exactly the same with video and apps. And notice that the music industry is still in business despite their dire predictions. And make no mistake, this is also about apps and operating systems, Hollywood is just fronting the efforts with money, higher prestige and their ownership of the mass media to assure the argument is a one sided amen chorus but the app makers also yearn for a locked down platform along with the OS vendors like Microsoft and Google. Apple of course already HAS a totally locked down platform on mobile and is only awaiting the right time to lock the desktop.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:09PM
You seriously overestimate the knowledge and concern of the average user.
Anyway you will still need to install and maintain annoying extensions to access this content. Isn't that the same thing?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:14PM (2 children)
I fail to see how DRM itself adds any more substantial annoyances to the user than are already there. The DRM is typically implemented as some sort of applet, or embedded in a platform that provides numerous other features as well. Flash, Java, etc,etc,etc. - DRM comes "free" for the end user with software that they already need to get other features.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:35PM (1 child)
Yes. And everyone hates Flash because there is one thing you can be assured of... it is outdated and must be updated before the page you want to see can be displayed... or you click the "show me anyway damnit" button. Java was so horrible for so many years you can't even use it anymore because no browser will allow it. Same for Silverlight. That is what I am talking about, DRM being associated in the average user's mind with lame, annoying crap.
So here is the state of play now:
Legit video content:
Easy to locate and buy content.... if available and compatible, etc., otherwise impossible.
DRM encumbered, meaning annoying in the ways I already enumerated.
Usually expensive.
Region locked, not usually an issue here in the U.S. but a big one everywhere else, even Canada.
Guilt trip free
Pirate Bay / Usenet / Etc:
Uneven quality
Harder to locate less popular content
Risk of your ISP giving you problems unless you invest time and effort into a VPN or trade by sneakernet
Guilt trip because it is in fact stealing.
Content that plays effortlessly everywhere, forever.
What we have to do is make the pirate option enough better that average people begin to prefer it to avoid the annoyance of 'legit' media's lockdown. Then the big media industry will have to decide whether to go down with all flags defiantly flying or surrender to the customers. We know what the music industry decided. We have to apply enough pain for them to give up their dream of unlimited monopoly rents and eternal DRM enforced copyrights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:37AM
Guilt trip free
You're giving money to scumbag corporations that bribe our government to get ever more draconian laws passed, so I think you should feel guilty.
Guilt trip because it is in fact stealing.
Making a copy of something doesn't make the original vanish and doesn't incur any additional expense upon the author. The only way you can possibly reach the conclusion that it's stealing is if you assume that potential profit is in fact a physical possession that the author owns before he/she even has it, but that requires that the author owns your money before you even agree to give it to them, which is patently absurd. Obtaining something that costs money is not necessarily stealing if you get it through copying (for the reasons previously mentioned), so that argument doesn't work either. Enough of the propaganda. [gnu.org]
But that's not to say that I support people sharing this stuff, because I don't; that just gives more publicity to the evil corporations that produced it. Boycott it all, I say.
(Score: 4, Informative) by melikamp on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:28PM (5 children)
Another load of bull. Standalone applications are not more risky if users do not install them, and if installing them is nontrivial, few ever will. How many people would install a standalone application to view a restaurant menu on the web? Also, as usual, the words "privacy" and "security" seem to apply to nonfree software providers, not so much the users. There is absolutely nothing private or secure about running mystery blobs, so any consistent pro-user privacy/security policy should firmly reject the blobs and lay out a plan for phasing them out.
That's right, Tim Berners-Lee, the average web user is a lot more ignorant and lazy than an average W3C functionary, and this is exactly why it's W3C's job to set the user straight, by providing her with a standard which does not explicitly hose her on arrival.
Web user abuse should not be standardized, and every argument in support of such practice is pure garbage. W3C is walking the plank. Someone with just a tiny bit of respect for the consumer rights should simply fork the HTML5 standard and cut out the EME parts, so that software developers have a secure and ethical standard to implement. At the time when every proprietary blob spies on users, if not worse, W3C as a whole and Tim Berners-Lee in particular decided to betray web users by throwing them under the spy-bus. They still have time to change the tune, but if not, the only thing they deserve is to be ignored and forgotten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:12PM
no shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
"Web user abuse should not be standardized, ..."
Too late. CenturyLink's already standardized it.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:12PM
And Comcast, and Verizon, and Mediacom, and AT&T...
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
How many people would install a standalone application to view a restaurant menu
Chick-fil-A has an application. Wendy's has an application. What major U.S. fast food chain doesn't have an application on Google Play Store?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:04PM
Install an application for a fast food place? Huh. That's an interesting way to fund their attempts to instate Christian Sharia law.
Islamists may find this educational. They really should update their methods since chicken sandwiches seem more effective than suicide bombers at spreading their brainwashing. As long as Islam and Christianity are dukeing it out over which branding of the same shit they want to violently impose on the rest of us that's fine with me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:14PM (12 children)
Fine with me. I won't install it. I won't watch their videos. I don't want any of that shit.
What they're trying to do is to take that choice away from me. They want to build it into the browser. I have to have a browser, so once they build it in to that, I can no longer simply say 'no' to them. If past experience is any guide it will be difficult to disable at first and over time they'll keep trying to deprecate and remove even the checkbox to turn the misfeature off.
No, no, no, a thousand times no.
"He also argued that these standalone applications represent a greater risk to privacy and security than the constrained, sandboxed environment of the Web. "
And I would argue that in the real world, the opposite is true, simply because people understand that there are privacy and security ramifications from installing a program to their machine while most do NOT understand when browsers are being used to the same affect.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:49PM (2 children)
>simply because people understand that there are privacy and security ramifications from installing a program to their machine
Citation needed. I mean sure, *some* people do, but in my experience the vast majority will happily install damned near anything if it's required to get access to the shiny thing.
I would certainly be in favor of a "this content requires DRM, allow? (yes)(no) [ ] always do this" dialog though
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
I cite your second sentence above in response to the first.
"I would certainly be in favor of a "this content requires DRM, allow? (yes)(no) [ ] always do this" dialog though"
I'd say that's the bare minimum a sane person would require at first blush, and after looking much more deeply at the situation I've come to the conclusion it's pitifully inadequate but yeah, still better than what will be shoved down peoples throats in the real world unfortunately.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:53PM
Sane and knowledgeable
You know that. I know that. Most people don't know that. Or don't care. And "most people" are the wind by which companies sail.
As for an "allow DRM" checkbox - I don't see that it actually dos much for most people, it's just convenient for those of us who wish to boycott DRM content, and for that I bet a "DRM system activated" warning plugin would do just as well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:14PM (6 children)
EME doesn't hurt you on its own. The user still needs to install the actual DRM extension separately. EME just creates a standard API for such extensions to exist. The EME code itself can be open-source, and no closed-source code is leaking into Firefox from it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:38PM (4 children)
And?
"The EME code itself can be open-source, and no closed-source code is leaking into Firefox from it."
So?
Seriously, why would I care about any of that? I don't worship open source code, I want software that respects my rights.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:13PM (3 children)
That seems like a contradiction to me, but whatever. 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.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:33AM (1 child)
Free Software is software that respects your rights. Open source may or may not do so, and many advocates of open source only care about technical quality and would gladly use proprietary software if it was better in that sense. If you're looking for a movement that focuses on ethics, then that's the Free Software movement.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:32PM
A distinction which I am aware of. I usually use the term "open source" as a catch all because "free software" implies "free as in beer". Which is also similarly misleading, because it doesn't make sense unless you say "free as in 'free beer'".
Anyway the difference is usually moot for consumers; open source code can almost always be co-opted by free software groups, like how OpenOffice was forked into LibreOffice. And in this case, it's whether the source is open to modification and redistribution that matters; that criteria is met by both movements.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(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?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:35AM
The user still needs to install the actual DRM extension separately.
In practical terms: not really. An EME blob is bundled with modern releases of Windows, and with Chrome. The user doesn't get to opt-out in either case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
You could simply not visit the website... No one is forcing you to click a link or type in a URL, certainly trying to trick you, but not forcing. Why is not installing an app different from not visiting a site? Why is one a valid excuse and the other isn't?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:12PM
The web as originally designed is a safe place, by design, it allows you to communicate without installing arbitrary programs to do so.
Installing a program on your computer is absolutely unsafe, by design. Virtually any non-trivial program must be installed with permissions sufficient to cause serious damage in order to be useful.
They're using the web like the apocryphal slow-boiling frogs trick* - what started as an inherently safe activity has been transformed, step by step, into a distribution system for malware.
*Doesn't actually work on frogs, but seems to be doing great on humans.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:32PM (3 children)
For all his vaunted smarts, Sir Berners Lee is missing the frickin point. If you attempt DRM as some sort of standardized plugin stuck into an open source browser it will not work. Give the user the encrypted content and the key with an open source browser sitting atop an open source OS between the two and hilarity will ensue. It will fail, it is obviously supposed to fail. It is like Obamacare, designed to fail into the system they wanted from the start but couldn't muster the consensus to push through the first time.
Without a protected media path all the way from the streaming server to a trusted monitor you can't make DRM video secure. Once you accept that reality you understand where this road ends. Either they lose and video becomes as DRM free as music or the PC becomes an XBox. Everyone in industry is wanting the XBox future, because behind the front Hollywierd will open up they can lock down the apps and end the Linux menace with mandatory secure boot. Most users do not care because they do not understand and the mass media who could fix that are part of Hollywood. Unless we few who do care are utterly ruthless in our resistance we get the XBox future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:45PM (1 child)
You seem to have excellent technical sensibilities.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:09PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:53PM
Yes, this. DRM is like perpetual motion in that it is impossible. The only reason DRM works at all is that so many people blindly or even willingly wear DRM chains. Steam bribes people to accept DRM, and has had a fair amount of success. But they know they can't push people too hard.
Imagine trying to apply DRM to knives, because knives are dangerous tools that can hurt people. Have to have the blade retract into a case when not being held by the authorized user. So this case needs some serious sophistication, some means of detecting fingerprints perhaps, and the means to power it. Have to ban all existing bare blade styles of knives, including the humble table knife. Then there's the problem of home made tools. People have only been making knives since, oh, the Stone Age, how do you stop them from sharpening any handy hunk of metal, giving it a cutting edge? Brain damage everyone so no one is capable of do-it-yourself work? Of course not. You don't, you live with this reality.
It's the same with books. Even if copy/paste can be disabled on a locked down XBox kind of machine, what's to stop any reader from hand copying whatever they read on the screen into a text file on another computer? Only has to be done once to slip the DRM chains for everyone.
Maybe they think that since video is not so trivial to hand copy, it'll work for that format. Nope. But I find it exasperating that a supposed tech genius and visionary can miss the boat so badly on this. Hey, Berners-Lee, we don't have to use HTML to move information around on the web. HTML can be forked. You fork it up, and we'll fork you and the W3C out.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:15PM
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by bribery".