Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-can't-beat-'em dept.

An anonymous coward writes:

"In March, 2013 Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, proposed adopting DRM into the HTML standard, under the name Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Writing in October 2013, he said that "none of us as users like certain forms of content protection such as DRM at all," but cites the argument that "if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C" as a reason for considering the inclusion of DRM in HTML.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has objected, saying in May of last year that the plan 'defines a new "black box" for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user'. Later, they pointed out that if DRM is OK for video content, that same principle would open the door to font, web applications, and other data being locked away from users.

public-restrictedmedia, the mailing list where the issue is being debated, has seen discussion about forking HTML and establishing a new standard outside of the W3C."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:12AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:12AM (#1491) Journal

    Long-term, one of the best ways of fighting DRM is to make it expensive and make the monopolies end up in the wrong place. DRM was killed on music by Apple. They ended up with a near monopoly on online music distribution, and the cartels that owned the copyright saw a choice between DRM or keeping control over their channel. With the status quo, we're likely to see the same thing for video, with Netflix instead of Apple: the studios have to either license their content for DRM-free distribution, or let Netflix completely own the distribution channel. Why? Because every existing device can play DRM-free H.264 content, just as every existing music player when the iPad was dominant (including the iPad) could play DRM-free MP3s.

    The record labels wanted to recreate competition in the retail market, and the only way of doing this was to allow anyone (except, for a little while, Apple, so the competition had some first-move advantage) to license their content for DRM-free distribution. That meant that they didn't have to create custom players (software or hardware) and the playback devices became competitive commodities (hundreds of Chinese companies would compete to make the cheapest MP3 player and let the labels keep the profitable bit of the business).

    The same will happen with video. Eventually, the studios will realise that DRM doesn't give control to the copyright holder it gives control to the retailer, and that they are the ones that are insisting on DRM, but they are not the ones benefiting from it.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Underrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:28AM

    by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:28AM (#1511) Homepage Journal

    i agree

    fortunately, a w3c standard for drm won't hinder efforts to kill drm... it's just a standard