The W3C Sells Out Users Without Seeming To Get Anything In Return

An anonymous reader writes "Questioning the W3C's stance on DRM, Simon St. Laurent asks 'What do we get for that DRM?' and has a thing or two to say about TBL's cop-out: 'I had a hard time finding anything to like in Tim Berners-Lee's meager excuse for the W3C's new focus on digital rights management (DRM). However, the piece that keeps me shaking my head and wondering is a question he asks but doesn't answer: If we, the programmers who design and build Web systems, are going to consider something which could be very onerous in many ways, what can we ask in return? Yes. What should we ask in return? And what should we expect to get? The W3C appears to have surrendered (or given?) its imprimatur to this work without asking for, well, anything in return. "Considerations to be discussed later" is rarely a powerful diplomatic pose.'"

Comments

DRM makes more free media likely, not less

[SuperKendall]

DRM's purpose is to limit web content to those users who have the money (resources) to pay for it.

That is utter bullshit.

There will be a tone of free DRM'ed content, just as there is today.

The DRM will in fact make MORE free content likely because the people giving out the content will feel more assured that people cannot copy it. A false assurance, but that's what will happen.

It also allows for more paid content too - but it's hardly for the rich as you imply, Netflix is very cheap for example and with a proper DRM standard they could move away from Silverlight and just use browser DRM.

Video providers ALREADY use DRM in browsers today. Why are you and others thinking it's WORSE to have a standard for this instead of having the node-podge of Flash and other solutions we have today? We are you not rushing to support something that can kill both Flash and Silverlight in one fell swoop?