Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Interesting) by KritonK on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:20AM

    by KritonK (465) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:20AM (#1507)

    Can such a standard even be implemented in an open source browser?

    It seems to me that there's nothing to prevent someone from modifying the browser code to store the decoded stream on disk, instead of displaying it on screen. Making DRM part of the HTML standard would probably make open source browsers, that implement it, illegal!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Blackmoore on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:31PM

    by Blackmoore (57) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:31PM (#1616) Journal

    it isn't.

    The content providers pushing this know this; and it is a move to force open source to either carry an unknown binary blob (which i expect to never show up) or force them out of the market since they wont be able to play the content; or extract large fees from open source to license the obfuscated binary blob.

    anyone with a programming background will look at this and unreasonable.
    you can still use 99% of the web without the drm, (unless these bastards think they can just buy everything worthwhile up and lock it behind drm) or the blob will be De-obfucated in a few hours, and a patch will be distributed in a few days. (that the lawyers will now use to try to extract payments from Linux and other open source companies)