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

Anyone noticed

[djupedal]

. . . we won the DRM wars? All the major stores are DRM-free. Obviously tho, some people don't really like music - they just like being self-righteous on the internet. (That's right, I ripped off xkcd 546 AND 849

Re:Anyone noticed

[Desler]

Apple's AAC fell to the wayside

AAC has nothing to do with DRM. And Apple still uses AAC for its DRM-free music as well.

Re: Anyone noticed

[Dahamma]

Drop in the bucket? Really?!?

Video games grossed about $67B in 2012 worldwide. The movie box office was $35B and the home video market was about $30B. More people watch video, maybe, but games are often much higher priced per unit. And don't forget mobile games, that industry has EXPLODED.

The buckets are pretty close to equal these days...

Re:Anyone noticed

[Anonymous Coward]

This standard is supposed to help out people using Linux

This standard will not help out people using Linux, and was never intended to "help out people using Linux".

Vendors can still require proprietary, platform-specific plugins that are almost certain to exclude free systems like Linux.

Re:Anyone noticed

[squiggleslash]

GameCube DVDs spin the wrong way

For what it's worth (which is not a lot because I don't want to undermine your point which is good) that's a myth. GC DVDs spin the standard way. IIRC, certain headers or something similar are missing/done differently on GC DVDs which makes it difficult to read them without custom firmware on the reader itself. But they do spin the normal way.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty obvious the content owners (not makers, authors, or creators, by in large) will insist on DRM for all their content, when it benefits just about nobody except them. The DRM battle was nearly won, and now W3C is actively undermining this societal progress.

It's not about "your website", it's about your access to culture that is increasingly consolidated among a few large corporate players due to the chicanery of copyright law. DRM is about controlling the playback, locking out certain uses and users.

I'd say that this will just push even more traffic to the torrents, but the NSA will probably divulging the correlated info for torrents soon enough.

Re:Tone down your rhetoric

[ozmanjusri]

Adding something to an open standard is "selling out"? WTF? Calm down and get a sense of perspective before posting these stories,

The W3C's stated purpose is:

"Standardizing the Web

W3C is working to make the Web accessible to all users (despite differences in culture, education, ability, resources, and physical limitations)"

http://www.w3schools.com/w3c/w3c_intro.asp

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

Their endorsement of DRM is antithetical to W3C's own clearly stated values, and shows that they are no longer a fit group to determine web standards. If anything, the "rhetoric" should be scaled up until they retract their approval of a restrictive internet.

Re:Tone up your rhetoric

[Windwraith]

You don't need to visit facebook to get facebook trackers. Just sayin'.

Since No One Has Pointed It Out Yet

[eldavojohn]

'What do we get for that DRM?'

Did "we" vote on this? Let's look at their members list: Apple, AT&T, Facebook, Csico, Comcast, Cox, Google, Huawei, HP, Intel, LG, Netflix, Verizon, Yahoo!, Zynga and ... The Walt Disney Company. Seriously, are we really so daft that we sit here scratching our heads wondering why a consortium of those players and THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY ended up including DRM? REALLY? There is a bill known as The Mickey Mouse Act in regards to excessive copyright that was passed into US law. And we're wondering how Disney might have influenced DRM as an option in a standard ... they're on the list, folks! Pull your heads out of your asses!

And those are just the companies I recognize that have a serious amount of money to be made on DRM (hello, Netflix?!). If I examine closer, there are much smaller players like, say, Fotosearch Stock Photography and Footage that sound like they would gladly vote for DRM in order to "protect" their products/satiate content owners.

Re:Some questions

[erikkemperman]

I basically agree with most of your post, but wanted to point out one mistake -- which is common enough, no offense. W3schools, which you cited, is in no way associated with W3C.

In fact, the information available from their site is often incomplete, inaccurate and sometimes plain wrong. It has been getting better, apparently, thanks in no small part due to these guys.