
You Can't Destroy the Village to Save It: W3C vs. DRM, Round Two - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/you-cant-destroy-village-save-it-w3c-vs-drm-round-two
======
duncan_bayne
I argued this seemingly endlessly here and on the W3C mailing list. I lost,
too.

The W3C has become convinced that if it doesn't adopt DRM into the 'open web'
(thereby destroying it), it will become irrelevant because content producers
will boycott the web. What they don't seem to understand is that DRM-
encumbered content is not part of the open web _anyway_, by definition; there
is no benefit to companies making it available on DRM-encumbered 'web sites'
versus proprietary app-store apps.

It's very hard to talk about this in detail with those pushing for DRM,
because they claim that the requirements incumbent upon _them_ to support DRM
are secret, and can't be shared with the public.

[http://boingboing.net/2014/01/14/requirements-for-drm-in-
htm...](http://boingboing.net/2014/01/14/requirements-for-drm-in-html5.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016)

I _think_ the reason for this is 'crisis of representation'; that is, those
voices on the W3C pushing for DRM are very large, very well funded, and have
good access to key decision-makers (like Berners-Lee and Jaffe).

The end result is something that _looks_ like a sensible, consultative
approach to developing standards but is in fact not.

~~~
walterbell
There are also legal and security risks created by the proposed TPP laws
related to DRM and "technological protection measures",
[https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/eff_tpp_tpm_analysis.pdf](https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/eff_tpp_tpm_analysis.pdf)

