Posted on 05/03/2013 9:14:22 AM PDT by ShadowAce
The World Wide Web consortium is considering a proposal to specify standards for HTML extensions to implement Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). The proposal is supported by Netflix, Microsoft, Google and the BBC.
HTML was initially designed to describe the semantics of text and give control to the browser over how to present it. Since it became common for companies to have web sites, they have steered the development of HTML towards precise control over what the user sees and the behavior of the page -- arguably going in the wrong direction, but not an injustice ... until now.
Of course, the W3C cannot prevent companies from grafting DRM onto HTML. They do this through nonfree plug-ins such as Flash, and with nonfree Javascript code, thus showing that we need control over the Javascript code we run and over the C code we run.
However, where the W3C stands is tremendously important for the battle to eliminate DRM. On a practical level, standardizing DRM would make it more convenient, in a very shallow sense. This could influence people who think only of short-term convenience to think of DRM as acceptable, which could in turn encourage more sites to use DRM.
On the political level, making room for DRM in the specifications of the World Wide Web would constitute an endorsement in principle of DRM by the W3C. Standardization by the W3C could facilitate DRM that is harder for users to break than DRM implemented in Javascript code. If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.
The arguments for standardizing DRM aim to avoid hypothetical minor inconveniences. For instance, some say that not standardizing DRM would result in putting more data and works in formats that cannot be searched. I doubt that claim; video sites that use Flash have plenty of information in searchable HTML about the videos. Standardized DRM could just as easily harm searchability, if it leads to more use of DRM. However, the main point is that that's a side issue either way. It is insignificant compared with the importance of discouraging DRM.
Another argument is that the W3C needs to obey the wishes of these companies to remain "relevant" -- in other words, to be in a position to influence events. However, it makes no sense to preserve that influence for some later decision that will be less important than this one. And is it even real influence? "Influence" maintained by obeying a master is more self-delusion than reality. Now is when the W3C should use the influence it has built up, saying, "DRM: Not in our name!"
Proprietary software is an injustice since users can't control it, and it commonly carries other injustices with it. The proprietary plugins or kernels required to view media under this standard, like proprietary software in general, could never merit users' trust. Once they harbor one malicious functionality, the digital handcuffs of DRM, there is no reason to suppose they won't have back doors and spyware as well.
Existing HTML features are already employed in various ways to mistreat users — for example, sites use cookies and third-party images for surveillance, and employ Javascript to disable normal browser functionality. Indeed, we are modifying a browser to block these forms of mistreatment.
However, these Web page features were not added for the sake of abuse, and they do have legitimate uses. The W3C is now considering a proposal that would, for the first time, standardize a feature intended solely and explicitly for mistreatment of users.
We therefore call on the W3C to reject any and all proposals for catering to DRM in World Wide Web standards. Please sign the petition at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 to join us.
Anyone who doesn’t like the www is free to create another protocol and use that instead. Eventually, someone will.
How is proprietary software an injustice? Does every thing on the WWW have or need to be free? If so, why?
I'd like one based on, say, PostScript for the [front-end] display* and something like Ada's Tasking for sessions** [on the back-end/server].
* This would address the "precise display issues" of HTML arising from its original design-goal of allowing the renderer to display the information as it willed.
** This would address the original design-goal of HTML for serving only static pages/content.
While I do not agree with RHS on everything, I do agree that the W3C needs to avoid giving even the appearance of approval of DRM in its standards. The W3C is an international body that should represent everyone--including end users, and those who oppose DRM.
Scratched my head on that one too. Also the claim that the Flash and JS plug-ins aren’t free.
This is much ado about nothing. It’s not like they don’t have DRM already. They are kicking and screaming because they don’t like DRM. Get over it...they lost that battle. It’s better to focus on user friendly DRM—which they have an opportunity to do here.
Also Open DRM is better than closed DRM—using the logic of this article. So why not at least embrace it as a standard vice going with 3rd party hacks and plug-ins?
They already do! Go download TOR browser and find a completely different Internet than what you know now.
I will warn you, however, NSA and CIA ACTIVELY monitor TOR sites, and you will likely expose yourself to suspicion.
The mean free as in freedom not free as in free beer.
It isn't; DRM, however, is -- DRM assumes that you have no ownership over the protected content, even if you are the creator.
Does every thing on the WWW have or need to be free? If so, why?
No. I don't think that he's saying this -- could be, but I think this is a case of simplifying/dumbing-down too much. By "proprietary software" he could be referring to "software handling 'propietariness'".
I do not know or have an opinion on how to answer your question but I do know the following: It is common knowledge that for all proprietary software one can usually find freeware that works equally as well as the proprietary.
The idea that software vendors can ‘limit’ or otherwise ‘control’ what users view on the www is repulsive to me.
thanks
I am, obviously, very familiar with TOR and onion. But TOR is not a protocol, it is just a way of routing. At the other end there are the same websites read with the same browser using the same HTML.
To each, his own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.