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.

Comments

Digital Rights?

[rtb61]

Digital rights is an ugly theft of words implying the rights of people, rather than the rights of greed ie digital wrongs. Where is the right to privacy, absent. Where it the right to the truth, absent. Where is the right to freedom from censorship, absent. All that is covered is the digital right to greed and the ability to print money and censor and silence the public, think those digital wrongs tools wont be extended out to mass censorship, how wrong you are.

Re:Digital Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital rights is an ugly theft of words implying the rights of people

Rubbish. Digital rights is clearly the rights of the rightsholder, in this case the copyright holder.

Where is the right to privacy, absent. Where it the right to the truth, absent. Where is the right to freedom from censorship, absent.

Then get off your soapbox and go do something about it rather than whining that people with an interest in copyright aren't equally interested in what you've listed there. This "oh poor me, won't somebody else act in my interest for me" is getting quite lame.

All that is covered is the digital right to greed and the ability to print money and censor and silence the public, think those digital wrongs tools wont be extended out to mass censorship, how wrong you are.

Don't be such a drama queen, the freedoms you speak of don't come from violating copyrights nor is EME a tool for censorship.

If you don't like it then release your content freely, fund free content and don't support non-free content. Time and time again people like you complain about DRM and freedom whilst clamouring for non-free content, if you steer clear of non-free content then this doesn't affect you in the slightest. EME is a mechanism to access a DRM implementation, if you don't provide one then it does nothing.

Re:Digital Rights?

[fox171171]

Don't be such a drama queen, the freedoms you speak of don't come from violating copyrights nor is EME a tool for censorship.

Don't be so naive. A car isn't a getaway tool, a gun isn't a murder tool. If it can be used or abused, it will be. This won't be the end, merely the beginning. It will creep and grow.

The Internet isn't what it used to be. It has been taken over and changed. Maybe should be called the commercialnet, or spynet or something of the sort. Do a search for stuff these days and more often than not I get sites trying to sell me stuff. Just yesterday I was searching for a how to on taking my laptop apart to clean the fans, and most links were for buying fans. I found what I needed, but it was way down the list.

The net wasn't created for online sales, yet it must be rebuilt at everyone's expense, so a few rich may ensure profit.

It was good while it lasted.

Re:Digital Rights?

[king neckbeard]

If you don't want something to be distributed, don't distribute it. That right to privacy is not challenged. However, that doesn't follow to being able to restrict downstream distribution once you've published something.

Re:Alternative Choices

[exomondo]

Are there vendors, browsers or developers who have committed to not adopt this standard?

Does it matter? EME is just an interface to a DRM module, if you don't have a DRM module then the content won't play. Just like if you want to watch content that requires Adobe Flash to play and you don't have Flash installed the content won't play.

Re:DRM is necessary to stop piracy

[epyT-R]

Actually, these days DRM encourages piracy because it gets in the way of legally purchased media.