Slashdot Mirror
W3C Erects DRM As Web Standard (theregister.co.uk)
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has formally put forward highly controversial digital rights management as a new web standard. "Dubbed Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), this anti-piracy mechanism was crafted by engineers from Google, Microsoft, and Netflix, and has been in development for some time," reports The Register. "The DRM is supposed to thwart copyright infringement by stopping people from ripping video and other content from encrypted high-quality streams." From the report: The latest draft was published last week and formally put forward as a proposed standard soon after. Under W3C rules, a decision over whether to officially adopt EME will depend on a poll of its members. That survey was sent out yesterday and member organizations, who pay an annual fee that varies from $2,250 for the smallest non-profits to $77,000 for larger corporations, will have until April 19 to register their opinions. If EME gets the consortium's rubber stamp of approval, it will lock down the standard for web browsers and video streamers to implement and roll out. The proposed standard is expected to succeed, especially after web founder and W3C director Sir Tim Berners-Lee personally endorsed the measure, arguing that the standard simply reflects modern realities and would allow for greater interoperability and improve online privacy. But EME still faces considerable opposition. One of its most persistent vocal opponents, Cory Doctorow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argues that EME "would give corporations the new right to sue people who engaged in legal activity." He is referring to the most recent controversy where the W3C has tried to strike a balance between legitimate security researchers investigating vulnerabilities in digital rights management software, and hackers trying to circumvent content protection. The W3C notes that the EME specification includes sections on security and privacy, but concedes "the lack of consensus to protect security researchers remains an issue." Its proposed solution remains "establishing best practices for responsible vulnerability disclosure." It also notes that issues of accessibility were ruled to be outside the scope of the EME, although there is an entire webpage dedicated to those issues and finding solutions to them.
That's why smart people say that DRM stands for Digital Restrictions Management.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If I create some original digital content should I not have the right to set the terms of use and distribution? If someone doesn't agree with the terms they do not have the right to circumvent the terms just because they can.
Nice thought, but no! The rights of buyers are enshrined in law, just as the rights of content creators are. For example, if you want to prevent a buyer from later selling it, that's not legal. Yet that's what DRM lets you do. You can also use DRM to block copying beyond the life of copyright, which may not be illegal, but is certainly unethical.
I'm not sure if you can sell a product and set terms of use at all. Certainly you can set terms when you provide a service or make an agreement beyond a simple sale, but the grocery store cannot tell me how to use or not use the zuccini I just bought. (Perhaps they could, but they would have absolutely no legal grounds to enforce it.) DRM lets you control your customers in ways the legal system does not.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.