> The problem here seemed to be that Netflix and the MPAA realized that they had enough power to push this through without needing to protect security researchers, and just decided "we can do it, so fuck it, let's do it." And Tim Berners-Lee -- who had the ability to block it -- caved in and let it happen. The whole thing is a travesty.
> [...] this argument [that DRM is a necessary evil] rests on the assumption that the web needs those content producers more than those content producers need the web -- and I'm not convinced that's an accurate portrayal of reality. It is fair to note that, especially with the rise of smart devices from phones to tablets to TVs, you could envision a world in which the big content producers "abandoned" the web and only put their content in proprietary DRM'd apps. And maybe that does happen. But my response to that is... so what?
I have to agree with the author here - so what? I don't think such "proprietary DRM'd apps" would have any trouble taking off for people seeking content from big providers, so why does W3C feel it needs to bend so far to the will of Netflix and the like?
The only opinions that matter are those of Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla. And not all at the same significance. But that's it, that's the entire list. So I don't understand why W3C is even involved any more, why it even exists? It has no power, so... what's the point?
For a comparison, take Richard Stallman's stance on not owning/carrying a cellphone. His position clearly does not influence telco policy, nor gov't policy on surveillance law. He has even stated publicly that it is a symbolic action and that he depends on the ability of others around him to make urgent calls if necessary. Yet he still takes the symbolic action. Why? Because standing up for one's principles is important, even in the face of a large inconvenience (or even dependence in this case on others).
Berners-Lee would suffer essentially zero inconvenience from taking a principled stance in the face of much larger corporate players who in reality determine W3C policy. His only hit would be to his ego, since it would reveal that his stance is largely symbolic rather than being a real player in the W3C.
I can certainly understand his stance given the prominence of such compromises in the tech industry. But I certainly do not agree with it, and I find it likely that history will not honor it as a principled stance.