Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

W3C Considers DRM in HTML Standard

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This discussion has been archived.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.
W3C Considers DRM in HTML Standard | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 103 comments | Search Discussion
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: 1) by jonh on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:03PM

    by jonh (733) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:03PM (#1705) Homepage

    I agree, and as much as I personally consider DRM to be a waste of CPU cycles, the devolval (sp?) of the internet into a "Cable TV 2.0" is unfortunate, but there are a number of factors driving it:

    • It's content delivery companies who stand the most to lose from fewer people watching TV, so it makes sense for them to invest in IPTV, to regain their market share. These are the companies which currently make money from bundling cable channels and other 'anti-choice' policies, so they'd be happy to recreate their current business model (and its profitability) to any extent that they can.
    • Traditional entertainment companies understand the broadcast model, and would see transitioning to a many-to-many delivery model to be financially risky. I think governments also are waking up to the idea that (rightly or wrongly) broadcast gives them more opportunity to shape public narratives than peer-to-peer media.
    • In the US (and in other countries to a lesser extent), most content delivery is handled by four or five large congomerates, most of which are also in the ISP business. So there's reduced incentive for these companies to compete with each other, and to some extent, an incentive for them to try to bundle their IPTV 'packages' with their ISP services.
    • ISP's with content to deliver are incentivized to privilege their own content against that of third parties (i.e. putting consumers at risk of going over their data allowance if they stream to much Netflix or Youtube, while the ISP's own VOD offerings are offset against the data cap).
    • Unfortunately, the general public don't seem to be particularly concerned about having access to free ('libre') technology, as the success of the iPhone demonstrates. Other companies are also looking enviously at Apple's 30% commission from the App Store, and would love to have a similar business model.

    So everyone seems to agree that the internet is the future for entertainment, but DRM is attractive to those who are familiar with 1950's-1990's paradigms. Perhaps a few years from now, we might start to see technology and policy being driven by peoples who grew up with the internet, but for now, we're still living in the twilight of the TV generation it seems.

  • (Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:52PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:52PM (#1794) Homepage Journal

    Unfortunately, the general public don't seem to be particularly concerned about having access to free ('libre') technology, as the success of the iPhone demonstrates.

    Well, first, Joe Sixpack has never heard of libre soft/hardware, secondly phones have always been locked down, and third, Android outsells iPhones two to one.

    And they haven't got a clue about Net Neutrality because nobody breathes a word of it in mainstream news.

    --
    Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience