Interoperability and the W3C: Defending the Future from the Present
eff.org
eff.org
Bad things happen because selfish people want to be spoon-fed digital junk food, and they will accept perverting the open web to achieve it.
At the point the W3C accepted eme/DRM, it was already finished as a standards org, it just didn't realise it yet.
But then I came to the part where developers can be sued under DMCA for trying to reverse-engineer the DRM (which inhibits new browsers, if they do not want to use proprietary binary blobs) and worst of all:
It would be a return to the bad old days of websites that advised that they were "Best viewed with Netscape" or "Best viewed with Internet Explorer," because the new browsers would be locked out of some of their content.
On one hand, I enjoy renting new material from Google Plus Movies and TV, enjoy Hulu and Netflix. I understand the need for some form of DRM.
On the other hand, I support the FSF and like to see open source options.
For me, the best middle road is to isolate all of the DRM in one closed source web browsers, and have the rest of my system as close to liver software as is practical.
The choices are "Standardize DRM descriptions in the w3c process or have an ad-hoc collection of binary blobs, de-facto standards implemented by the dominant browser vendors, and external mobile players." If the w3c doesn't standardize the DRM descriptions, it just pushes the standards a little bit towards irrelevance as the industry interprets silence as damage and routes around it (especially given the current ecosystem where ever-more "web content" is actually vended through mobile apps).
This may very well be the principled stand that the w3c should take---it may be correct to curtail themselves to only standardizing things that can be openly implemented. But we should observe that their lack of a hat in this ring isn't going to kill DRM-protected video streams---the owners of the content want that and are willing to pay a LOT of money to be lied to.
While it'd be nice if it worked the way you described, it seems that the standard as currently codified (including one specified "dummy" open reference implementation) is all that is needed.
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles (Web for All, Web on Everything)
We can either standardize some of the interfaces and bolt the DRM on there, or we can standardize nothing and everyone will do whatever the hell they want because there's too much money riding on DRM being implemented for it to just disappear.
I fail to see how standardizing part of the solution instead of none of the solution creates a less interoperable/palatable system.
Whatever the DRM technique you have can always put in a low noise chamber a cam/microphone to make a close to the original reproduction by analogic means you can re-publish.
People used to enjoy watching videos in 1024x768x16bpp and hearing is satisfied with 46KHz
More than what can be achieved in AAD, or ADD chains.
DRM is a chimera. It costs money and IP laws are flawed at the contractual level.
Since Louis XIV when _lettre de Patentes_ where invented the deal was exclusivity granted to invest in new content versus free public domain when exclusivity disappears.
Disney/Sony music are recycling public domain in so called original works (Grimm tales, 1900 pop songs converted in Rap melodies ...) hence breaking the deal. And exclusivity is getting WAY overboard. As if chosen authors where the new nobility of culture, while street art is being stolen by galleries and real artists lives in misery.
Plus, except Gutenberg close to none public domain contents are cheaper than new one, while paying the artists are said to be the greatest expense.
Try to find the integral of Shakespeare, Molière, The 1001 night tales for a decent price.