W3C insider explains what's wrong with cramming DRM into HTML5 - and what you can do about it

Discuss

4 Responses to “W3C insider explains what's wrong with cramming DRM into HTML5 - and what you can do about it”

  1. L_Mariachi says:

    What is the response to the DRM advocates’ argument that not including it will deter adoption by the likes of Netflix, Hulu, et al., thereby letting proprietary formats (Flash, Silverlight) maintain enough of a presence that it’s safe to assume that your audience has them installed, thus deterring adoption in the wider market because “Why bother migrating, everybody’s got Flash?”

    that sentence was not very well constructed but you get the gist

    • FuzzyWuzzWuzABear says:

       The proper response is: boo frickin’ hoo.

      We need to realize that Hollywood needs the web more than the web needs Hollywood.  If the W3C ultimately rejects DRM for HTML5 like they should, what is Hollywood going to do?  Come up with their own ridiculous, laughably restricted standards that no one will use?  No, they will either go with whatever proprietary software vendor will build them a plugin with the false promise of unbreakable DRM or just continue being the belligerent, adversarial assholes that they are.  Neither way will deter piracy (nor will DRM embedded in HTML5).

      The difference between integrating DRM in HTML5 and implementing it using plugins like Flash or Silverlight is that you have the *choice* not to install the plugins.  If this Hollywood coup of HTML5 succeeds, that choice will no longer exist.  Either the open, fundamental infrastructure of the web will need to integrate DRM — the absolute antithesis of open source — or forgo having official HTML5 support and be relegated to irrelevance.

      What I don’t understand is why W3C is even vaguely entertaining this idea.  WE HOLD ALL THE CARDS and are entirely justified in telling Hollywood to SCREW OFF.

  2. Kes Amoviche says:

    Please sir, it is Digital RESTRICTIONS Management, not Digital Rights
    Management.  They changed the acronym from the original to help frame
    the debate as being about their rights.  Everyone needs to go back to
    Digital Restrictions Management to make sure that everyone knows that
    this is about their restricting you from using your own equipment as you
    want to.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with their “rights” in
    regards to the dissemination of their content.  It is all about
    controlling the market, keeping new people out, restricting our choices
    and destroying innovation that might challenge them. 

    So please
    use the original meaning of the acronym.  Let;s keep what this is really
    about up front; we the people having convenient access to content, and
    the big boys wanting to keep things the way they were.

  3. Arguing with the W3C is utterly futile. They’re a bunch of crooks and special interest industry pushovers. They’re corrupted to the core, with the W3C CEO too afraid to declare it out of scope, and with the proponents supressing any dissenting opinion.

    The W3C is toast. Gone, the way of the dodo. They should no longer have any authority to “standardize” the web. It’s broken, we need a new one. A real standards body, with strong guiding principles and strict adherence to these. 

Leave a Reply