
Interoperability and the W3C: Defending the Future from the Present - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w3c-defending-future-present
======
askyourmother
I've said it before, and I am sure it will be as unpopular now as then: there
are people here who should know better, who can see where this road leads, but
they are selfish "I know DRM is bad, but I got ta have ma Netflix!".

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.

~~~
irae
I don't see an issue, I don't watch netflix on my browser anymore. IMHO we can
live without EME and we can get Netflix proprietary apps natively doing
whatever they want to decode DRM on their own. We don't need to break the web
for that.

------
davexunit
DRM must not be allowed into a W3C Recommendation. The W3C has already lost
staff over the issue, and stand to lose more if they ignore the thousands of
people who object to this. I really hope that the protests and press from the
FSF and EFF have helped steer the W3C into doing the right thing.

------
feylikurds
When reading the beginning of the article, I did not get what the big deal
was. It seemed to me that W3C just wanted to standardize existing DRM on the
web and if you did not want to use DRM, then do not visit the site.

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._

------
mark_l_watson
I have really mixed feelings about this.

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.

~~~
fixermark
Essentially, the choices are not "Standardize DRM descriptions in the w3c
process or don't have browsers supporting DRM at the HTML-model level."

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.

~~~
nitrogen
Last time I checked, EME _still_ results in an ad hoc collection of binary
blobs. There's Google, Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple all with competing blobs.

~~~
fixermark
It results in a standard for describing them so that browsers can properly
select the right one, or ignore all of them. That's less ad-hoc than the
alternatives.

~~~
nitrogen
But it does very little, if anything, for the open web, and either needs total
top to bottom specification for open implementation, or doesn't belong in a
web standard.

~~~
fixermark
That may be true, but it is irrelevant. I don't know why you believe that the
technologies under the W3C web standards need be open. The _standards_
themselves need be open (they're published, after all), but the technologies
underpinning them? Checking W3C's website, their guidelines for
implementations appear to be "W3C issues a call for implementations as part of
standardization and welcomes public participation"
[[https://www.w3.org/participate/implementation](https://www.w3.org/participate/implementation)].
Nothing in the formal standards process
[[https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html](https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html)]
appears to require all implementations be "open," and that assumption flies in
the face of previous legacy standards (<img> when .gif was an accepted file
format but still encumbered by patent, the <object> and <embed> standards that
specify closed-binary plugins to side-load).

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.

~~~
nitrogen
[https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-
Li...](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing)
(Royalty Free)

[https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles)
(Web for All, Web on Everything)

------
hyperion2010
Oh man, I smell a court case pitting the ADA against the DMCA. I have this
feeling ADA would win.

~~~
wmf
The Library of Congress is permitted to create exemptions from the DMCA and
there are two for accessibility:
[http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/DMCA_Exemptions_to_the_Prohibiti...](http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/DMCA_Exemptions_to_the_Prohibition_on_Circumvention#Exemptions_granted_3)

------
dreamdu5t
We don't need the W3C and never have.

