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."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:56PM
I'd be for any future HTML standard to explicitly forbid DRM on any HTML element (e.g., video). Even though companies will do it, they would not be implementing HTML version x.x, and they would be actively violating it, which FOSS browsers could bring to the user's attention ("this page violates yadda yadda yadda"). It would make a strong statement about "our" view of DRM. I know this will never happen.
(Score: 1) by meisterister on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:57AM
You bring up a very interesting point (could someone please mod the parent Insightful). If enough FOSS browsers complain to the user that the page implements DRM (preferably with strong wording, such as "The page you are trying to view violates your rights"), then HTML wouldn't even need to be forked.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.