12 ms·

Shame, shame, shame. We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on t

Shame, shame, shame. We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on these issues, but imho it's all too subtle. We should start using harsher terminology for what's actually happening. This is flat out CORRUPTION, and I'm not seeing anyone express it as such. It's probably too late already, and unfortunately, this is merely a reflection on what's happening in the world in the larger geo-political context. Corruption everywhere.

5_minutes 9y ago
How come we don't know WHO sold us out for that beach house?
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Apparently one of them is Tim Berners-Lee?!? He's the Director of W3C as far as I know.
  - amelius 9y ago
    Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14759219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14759219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14720591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14720591
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Tim Berners-Lee, for one.
wolfgke 9y ago
> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.
- ashleysmithgpu 9y ago
  Is the EFF a big enough presence to "fork" the W3C standards? I hope so.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    The only party with the capability of "forking" Internet standards as we know them is Google. Because as the majority share of web browser traffic an extremely dominant percentage of web server traffic, Google can define the Internet as it wishes, and everyone else has to follow along or fall behind. This is the same with EME. Standards organizations stay relevant by accepting what Google gives them, they would simply be left behind if they didn't. (For those who don't know, Widevine, the DRM scheme that is currently best known as compatible with EME, and which taints my Firefox browser so I can watch movies, is owned by Google.) http://www.widevine.com http://www.widevine.com (Sidebar to the sidebar: Widevine has the least Googley website you've ever seen. Stock photos of a physical padlock, HTML code entirely based on table tags for layout. It's so strange.)
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I doubt it. Specifically, I doubt they will, or even want to. That's not really what they do, they are mostly advocates. As advocates,I'm sad to see them do this. I will still donate to them, but it's unfortunate to see them quit. This means they will no longer have a seat at the table for future discussions. They still do enough good to be worth donating to, but this was not a very good choice on their part.
  - frivoal 9y ago
    That's the wrong question. W3C itself is relatively tiny, and has fairly ordinary (albeit well tuned) software/server infrastructure. Reproducing the legal framework would be more of a pain, but even that could probably be done. But W3C is mostly its member companies, and the're not switching, since the majority of them, including all browsers, were in favor of this. So if all existing specifications continue to reside on W3C's web site, and all new specifications continue to be produced (by member companies) in the same place, there's not meaningful forking possible. If members are disgruntled, you can fork. That's happened before when there was disagreement about what to do with HTML, and it led to the creation of the WHATWG. By and large, members this time are supportive. Not all, mind you, but all the large players.
emodendroket 9y ago
What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins?
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins? What is supposed to be happen is a zero-tolerance and active fightback against anything DRM-related in the web - be it in the browser or be it a plugin.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    You can't really expect companies like Google, Microsoft, or Apple to take up that mantle -- why would they, when it's not in their interests? If you actually want to fix the problem you probably need to hit the regulatory levers.
    - jacamat 9y ago
      How is it not in their interests?
      - MBCook 9y ago
        It’s actively against their interests. Their interest is in letting people use their browsers to view content. The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. So the browser companies support it. It’s not manditory, you can ship content without it. But if Chrome said ‘DRM free only’ all that would happen is people would abandon it to be able to watch video online. If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal.
        wolfgke 9y ago
        > The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media companies that use DRM, there would soon appear media companies that provide a "no-DRM media package". As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content, I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary. DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.
benevol 9y ago
Capitalism at work - a handful of ultra-rich guys winning even more ground over common folks again.
- luxuryballs 9y ago
  the market allows the DRM because people keep buying the content even when DRM is included, standardizing it may just mean less clunky implementations of DRM but if we were to ban DRM from the market would something else crop up to replace it? would content creators stop making content? what about IP laws? if we got rid of them, there would probably be more content AND more DRM? or would it be more content and less DRM since it would only be a matter of time before someone legally reproduces your work so why bother with DRM?
- andybak 9y ago
  Who are the "common folk" in this? (Complex issue but I'm not sure I see your point)
- thephyber 9y ago
  Technically "capitalism" would also mention the small long-tail of web consumers that refuse to use browsers that enable these new W3C specs. That said, most of actual market transactions involve some sort of subtle coercion or manipulation of emotions, which means they violate the core assumptions of economics. {Marketing, sales, religion/cults, magicians, A/B testing} all involve some sort of cognitive / psychological manipulation -- the core incentives of the modern economy incentivize companies to optimize for attention capture and behavior exploitation.
- spdustin 9y ago
  In this case, the “common folk” you refer to don’t give a shit.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    Only while the consequences of "not giving a shit" aren't immediately affecting them. Those same people are the ones who turn around and complain "what can we do" and organize social media armchair protests when consequences simple enough for them to understand come along. Not the best allies. https://xkcd.com/743/ https://xkcd.com/743/
matchagaucho 9y ago
One day HackerNews is chastising W3C for not adding encryption to the Payment Request API. The next day HN is lamenting about a standard encryption API being defined.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  "guiiise, it's just encryption!" Try harder. Maybe go with a "for the children" or anti-terrorism tack.
  - matchagaucho 9y ago
    Or maybe try paying for the content you consume. The "free ride" Internet is over.
    - nebabyte 9y ago
      Looks like you replied to the wrong person
nebabyte 9y ago
Frankly I'm far more interested in which developing or first-world locales, if any, exist where net freedoms like these are protected by the majority, rather than having to be fought for by the minority against a wave of complacency and apathy. I'm pretty much done with trying to fight the american capitalist ideology which empowers these companies to steamroll over the average consumer happy to give up their own rights and freedoms then left to complain with the extortionist environments that leads to. I don't think the world can continue on the way it's going without some serious ideological fragmentations in the near future, and the moment some country embraces its "Pirate Party" or creates an "Internet Bill of Rights" establishing the core tenets the EFF and others fight for as the basis of their internet-related litigation - is the moment I know where the sane people all probably went (or would go as time goes on).
- is71515124 9y ago
  > the extortionist environments that leads to. Media delivery in 2017 is hardly an extortionary environment. Practically speaking, Americans spend very little of their income on the Audible/Netflix/HBO Gos of the world. Netflix costs $120 a year? Against a median household income of $55,000, that is next to nothing. If anything, it's the opposite: there's a glut of content available to consume, in nearly every possible genre, at very low price points. There is far, far more good television than any person could reasonably watch, all for a couple thousandths of the typical person's annual wages.
  - digital_trench 9y ago
    It's not about the content available. It's about the control.
    - is71515124 9y ago
      "Extortion" typically refers to using force to unjustly extract money from someone. Without unjust extraction of money, there can be no extortion. I understand that others have concerns about control, and that's totally legitimate, but it's also not what I was responding to.
throwaway34241 9y ago
Do you have any evidence or reason to believe there is actual corruption on the committee (aside from them making a decision you disagree with)? I suspect I agree with you on DRM but this style of debate, where there is no attempt to argue or explain the issue, and the first line of argument is personal attacks or denigrating anyone with an opposing viewpoint, is depressing. Consider that accusing climate scientists of corruption has also been fairly effective. For this particular issue, Netflix etc already requires DRM to play in a browser, and the browsers already provide DRM for Netflix etc to use. I would like to understand what the consequences of this decision are, if some of the way this works is standardized. Will this lead to more DRM? Is the only conceivable explanation that the MPAA is slipping the W3C members some bribes?
- burkaman 9y ago
  The parent comment is not the first line of argument, it's the continuation of a years-long argument. Even if you completely ignore the history, the first line of argument is found in the article, not the comments. If you would like to understand the fundamentals of this debate, this comment section is not the right place to start. It's very easy to find arguments and proposals from all sides of the issue elsewhere.
- 5_minutes 9y ago
  "In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing “Encrypted Media Extensions,” an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem" With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. And: "It is clear that the W3C allowing DRM technologies to be developed at the W3C is just a naked ploy for the W3C to get more (paying) member companies to join"[0] 0 - https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security
  - mozumder 9y ago
    DRM is also how you get media companies to publish on the web. Media companies couldn't give any less fucks about the web. They can go 100 years without publishing on the web, since they have other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with. This whole process of enabling DRM is web developer's efforts to kiss media-companies ass in order for them to publish their products on the web. Artists and other creatives have the option to publish their works wherever they see fit. It's their creation, not the public's. In fact, there are actual art galleries that won't sell you their works if they don't deem you sufficient enough. How you exhibit their work matters to them. That's their right. The web needs these media companies more than the media companies need the web. Anyone that complains about DRM is doing it wrong. You are limiting the web because you are saying you don't want media companies to publish on the web. You are now causing the web to compete against media companies private apps or physical media, which is a losing proposition. No one gives a shit about freedom. Everyone wants to use rights-managed content online. And the ONLY way to do that is with DRM. So, yah, I'm not seeing any corruption here. Just acknowledgement of the fact that artists own their works, and web developers need to kiss their ass if they want artists to publish on the web.
apatters 9y ago
I think it's time to start contemplating alternatives to the Web. The interests of users are no longer front and center. The past several years of the Web platform's evolution have been characterized by privacy invasions, out of control Javascript, spammy push notifications, AMP... and now this. This is not what many of us signed up for. I don't know if there even are alternatives to the Web at this time but when you can't trust even the standards bodies to act in your best interest, it's time to start talking about how we could walk away from the whole thing.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  "The interests of users are no longer front and center. " Netflix is a 'user' of the internet, as any other. The web is open - those who want to share their content freely can do that - those who want to DRM, they can do that. The 'march of economics' is usually just the 'march of reality'. Game of Thrones is expensive to make - ultimately, people have to get paid for it somehow. Most creative/entertainment projects are a dud. Only a few even make money.
ashark 9y ago
If someone launches a new HTML-based Web with crippled javascript (no network comm access, for one, including ability to trigger links or forms), some small, restricted subset of CSS, and much better built-in dynamic table and form elements, I'm there. This Web's about to be eaten by DRM and WebAssembly anyway. Pretty soon it'll just be a way to deliver QT apps (or some other framework that runs in WebAssembly and renders to OpenGL or similar) and video. A web where the only thing you'll find when you follow a link is more documents (or a download) and pages can't try to make your computer do a bunch of stuff you don't want it to would be nice to have again, and it's clear now that the system itself has to ban the capabilities that enable all the garbage, or it'll take over.
- EGreg 9y ago
  Wait, what? Perhaps you are right, but how do you make the leap from "W3C standardizes DRM" and "the Web is about to be eaten by DRM?" The Web is used for so many things these days. It is a publishing platform that allows anyone to host their own content to the entire internet, thanks to Web Browsers just loading it. I can see IPFS being an improvement over the Web but besides the web server being a single point of failure, why is a DRM standard specifically going to destroy the Web? Wordpress is used to power 20% of new sites. My own company is developing an open source platform for communities to run their own social networks (https://qbix.com https://qbix.com) so what is this "eating" you speak of? EDIT: This has been one of my most downvoted comments ever. Can someone explain the rationale? (Is it super obvious that the Web will be killed by DRM that asking the question should be punished?)
  - ashark 9y ago
    DRM and webassembly. The end of openness in both cases—though at least WebAssembly means we eventually won't have to write Javascript anymore, which is nice as far as that goes. Sure, Javascript uglifiers and frameworks mucking with HTML standards and the DOM had already made "view source" nigh-worthless, and there were DRM'd plugins of course, and browsers had supported some schemes for a while as a de facto standard, but this still feels like a last-straw kind of situation to me. > My own company is developing an open source platform for communities to run their own social networks (https://qbix.com https://qbix.com) so what is this "eating" you speak of? Sure, it's already the world's premiere delivery mechanism for "apps", advertisements, and mass surveillance software. I know. That's exactly the kind of thing that I don't mind living somewhere, but I'd like it not to be all mixed up in my networked hypertext document reader. This Web's over. Anyone hosting an After-Web? I could do with a little more Webbing. [EDIT] Though actually your thing seems fine. I saw "social network" and glossed over the rest. Sorry.
justonepost 9y ago
It's digital serfdom, pure and simple. Rather than letting us own, they want us to pay rent. It's the electronic feudal lords looking out for one another. This lawyer explains it well: http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-new-feudalism-why-internet-things-marks-660102 http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-...
orblivion 9y ago
Whether or not there's actual corruption, it's inevitable (in my opinion) that this sort of thing would happen. It's the march of economics. The open web just doesn't allow suppliers to meet demand. One way or another they'll find a way to do it. DRM snuck in the door via Flash. We just about stamped it out, but wouldn't you know it somehow it came back in a more insidious (if innocuous looking) form. People on our side like to claim that DRM is a foolish business model, but I'm not convinced that they're not just deluding themselves. Whatever the answer is, I don't think it's stopping DRM with brute force. I think it will need to involve either coming up with alternate business models that are anywhere near as viable, or a way to keep it in a box to use for the few applications that really benefit from it.
kelvin0 9y ago
BBS on HAM Radio? I've been toying with the idea for a while. The exact stack is not clear yet, but it has to 'liberate' me from the current web/internet insanity. It could be slow and imperfect, but dammit it would be ours again.
- ebcode 9y ago
  Yes! sign me up. :)
marcoperaza 9y ago
>This is flat out CORRUPTION That's a hell of an accusation. And you should present evidence if you're going to level it. It is dishonorable to make baseless attacks on people's character and integrity.
sogen 9y ago
This will only lead to an eternal Copyright Term Extension Act for online content...
xvilka 9y ago
Not exactly a corruption, it is just world doesnt belong to national governments - only to corporations. That wont change any time soon and will only worsen.
Iv 9y ago
We have lost it: P2P should have been the future of internet. Instead it devolved into the "connect to a server for everything" cloud system. Internet should be like ZeroNet: a serverless system where content of interest is shared by its millions of viewers and where servers only use a small amount of bandwidth as backups and initial seeders. That the wikipedia still needs servers and asks donations yearly to keep them online is a testament to how stalled progress in internet infrastructure is today.
mfukar 9y ago
I don't think it's as subtle as it is incoherent. I've yet to see a single article putting together the harm of DRM in terms tangible to a layman.

5_minutes 9y ago

How come we don't know WHO sold us out for that beach house?

wavefunction 9y ago
Apparently one of them is Tim Berners-Lee?!? He's the Director of W3C as far as I know.
- amelius 9y ago
  Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14759219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14759219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14720591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14720591
craftyguy 9y ago
Tim Berners-Lee, for one.

wolfgke 9y ago

> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.

ashleysmithgpu 9y ago
Is the EFF a big enough presence to "fork" the W3C standards? I hope so.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  The only party with the capability of "forking" Internet standards as we know them is Google. Because as the majority share of web browser traffic an extremely dominant percentage of web server traffic, Google can define the Internet as it wishes, and everyone else has to follow along or fall behind. This is the same with EME. Standards organizations stay relevant by accepting what Google gives them, they would simply be left behind if they didn't. (For those who don't know, Widevine, the DRM scheme that is currently best known as compatible with EME, and which taints my Firefox browser so I can watch movies, is owned by Google.) http://www.widevine.com http://www.widevine.com (Sidebar to the sidebar: Widevine has the least Googley website you've ever seen. Stock photos of a physical padlock, HTML code entirely based on table tags for layout. It's so strange.)
- KGIII 9y ago
  I doubt it. Specifically, I doubt they will, or even want to. That's not really what they do, they are mostly advocates. As advocates,I'm sad to see them do this. I will still donate to them, but it's unfortunate to see them quit. This means they will no longer have a seat at the table for future discussions. They still do enough good to be worth donating to, but this was not a very good choice on their part.
- frivoal 9y ago
  That's the wrong question. W3C itself is relatively tiny, and has fairly ordinary (albeit well tuned) software/server infrastructure. Reproducing the legal framework would be more of a pain, but even that could probably be done. But W3C is mostly its member companies, and the're not switching, since the majority of them, including all browsers, were in favor of this. So if all existing specifications continue to reside on W3C's web site, and all new specifications continue to be produced (by member companies) in the same place, there's not meaningful forking possible. If members are disgruntled, you can fork. That's happened before when there was disagreement about what to do with HTML, and it led to the creation of the WHATWG. By and large, members this time are supportive. Not all, mind you, but all the large players.

emodendroket 9y ago

What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins?

wolfgke 9y ago
> What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins? What is supposed to be happen is a zero-tolerance and active fightback against anything DRM-related in the web - be it in the browser or be it a plugin.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  You can't really expect companies like Google, Microsoft, or Apple to take up that mantle -- why would they, when it's not in their interests? If you actually want to fix the problem you probably need to hit the regulatory levers.
  - jacamat 9y ago
    How is it not in their interests?
    - MBCook 9y ago
      It’s actively against their interests. Their interest is in letting people use their browsers to view content. The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. So the browser companies support it. It’s not manditory, you can ship content without it. But if Chrome said ‘DRM free only’ all that would happen is people would abandon it to be able to watch video online. If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal.
      - wolfgke 9y ago
        > The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media companies that use DRM, there would soon appear media companies that provide a "no-DRM media package". As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content, I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary. DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.

benevol 9y ago

Capitalism at work - a handful of ultra-rich guys winning even more ground over common folks again.

luxuryballs 9y ago
the market allows the DRM because people keep buying the content even when DRM is included, standardizing it may just mean less clunky implementations of DRM but if we were to ban DRM from the market would something else crop up to replace it? would content creators stop making content? what about IP laws? if we got rid of them, there would probably be more content AND more DRM? or would it be more content and less DRM since it would only be a matter of time before someone legally reproduces your work so why bother with DRM?
andybak 9y ago
Who are the "common folk" in this? (Complex issue but I'm not sure I see your point)
thephyber 9y ago
Technically "capitalism" would also mention the small long-tail of web consumers that refuse to use browsers that enable these new W3C specs. That said, most of actual market transactions involve some sort of subtle coercion or manipulation of emotions, which means they violate the core assumptions of economics. {Marketing, sales, religion/cults, magicians, A/B testing} all involve some sort of cognitive / psychological manipulation -- the core incentives of the modern economy incentivize companies to optimize for attention capture and behavior exploitation.
spdustin 9y ago
In this case, the “common folk” you refer to don’t give a shit.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  Only while the consequences of "not giving a shit" aren't immediately affecting them. Those same people are the ones who turn around and complain "what can we do" and organize social media armchair protests when consequences simple enough for them to understand come along. Not the best allies. https://xkcd.com/743/ https://xkcd.com/743/

matchagaucho 9y ago

One day HackerNews is chastising W3C for not adding encryption to the Payment Request API. The next day HN is lamenting about a standard encryption API being defined.

nebabyte 9y ago
"guiiise, it's just encryption!" Try harder. Maybe go with a "for the children" or anti-terrorism tack.
- matchagaucho 9y ago
  Or maybe try paying for the content you consume. The "free ride" Internet is over.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    Looks like you replied to the wrong person

nebabyte 9y ago

Frankly I'm far more interested in which developing or first-world locales, if any, exist where net freedoms like these are protected by the majority, rather than having to be fought for by the minority against a wave of complacency and apathy. I'm pretty much done with trying to fight the american capitalist ideology which empowers these companies to steamroll over the average consumer happy to give up their own rights and freedoms then left to complain with the extortionist environments that leads to. I don't think the world can continue on the way it's going without some serious ideological fragmentations in the near future, and the moment some country embraces its "Pirate Party" or creates an "Internet Bill of Rights" establishing the core tenets the EFF and others fight for as the basis of their internet-related litigation - is the moment I know where the sane people all probably went (or would go as time goes on).

is71515124 9y ago
> the extortionist environments that leads to. Media delivery in 2017 is hardly an extortionary environment. Practically speaking, Americans spend very little of their income on the Audible/Netflix/HBO Gos of the world. Netflix costs $120 a year? Against a median household income of $55,000, that is next to nothing. If anything, it's the opposite: there's a glut of content available to consume, in nearly every possible genre, at very low price points. There is far, far more good television than any person could reasonably watch, all for a couple thousandths of the typical person's annual wages.
- digital_trench 9y ago
  It's not about the content available. It's about the control.
  - is71515124 9y ago
    "Extortion" typically refers to using force to unjustly extract money from someone. Without unjust extraction of money, there can be no extortion. I understand that others have concerns about control, and that's totally legitimate, but it's also not what I was responding to.

throwaway34241 9y ago

Do you have any evidence or reason to believe there is actual corruption on the committee (aside from them making a decision you disagree with)? I suspect I agree with you on DRM but this style of debate, where there is no attempt to argue or explain the issue, and the first line of argument is personal attacks or denigrating anyone with an opposing viewpoint, is depressing. Consider that accusing climate scientists of corruption has also been fairly effective. For this particular issue, Netflix etc already requires DRM to play in a browser, and the browsers already provide DRM for Netflix etc to use. I would like to understand what the consequences of this decision are, if some of the way this works is standardized. Will this lead to more DRM? Is the only conceivable explanation that the MPAA is slipping the W3C members some bribes?

burkaman 9y ago
The parent comment is not the first line of argument, it's the continuation of a years-long argument. Even if you completely ignore the history, the first line of argument is found in the article, not the comments. If you would like to understand the fundamentals of this debate, this comment section is not the right place to start. It's very easy to find arguments and proposals from all sides of the issue elsewhere.
5_minutes 9y ago
"In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing “Encrypted Media Extensions,” an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem" With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. And: "It is clear that the W3C allowing DRM technologies to be developed at the W3C is just a naked ploy for the W3C to get more (paying) member companies to join"[0] 0 - https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security
- mozumder 9y ago
  DRM is also how you get media companies to publish on the web. Media companies couldn't give any less fucks about the web. They can go 100 years without publishing on the web, since they have other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with. This whole process of enabling DRM is web developer's efforts to kiss media-companies ass in order for them to publish their products on the web. Artists and other creatives have the option to publish their works wherever they see fit. It's their creation, not the public's. In fact, there are actual art galleries that won't sell you their works if they don't deem you sufficient enough. How you exhibit their work matters to them. That's their right. The web needs these media companies more than the media companies need the web. Anyone that complains about DRM is doing it wrong. You are limiting the web because you are saying you don't want media companies to publish on the web. You are now causing the web to compete against media companies private apps or physical media, which is a losing proposition. No one gives a shit about freedom. Everyone wants to use rights-managed content online. And the ONLY way to do that is with DRM. So, yah, I'm not seeing any corruption here. Just acknowledgement of the fact that artists own their works, and web developers need to kiss their ass if they want artists to publish on the web.

apatters 9y ago

I think it's time to start contemplating alternatives to the Web. The interests of users are no longer front and center. The past several years of the Web platform's evolution have been characterized by privacy invasions, out of control Javascript, spammy push notifications, AMP... and now this. This is not what many of us signed up for. I don't know if there even are alternatives to the Web at this time but when you can't trust even the standards bodies to act in your best interest, it's time to start talking about how we could walk away from the whole thing.

alexasmyths 9y ago
"The interests of users are no longer front and center. " Netflix is a 'user' of the internet, as any other. The web is open - those who want to share their content freely can do that - those who want to DRM, they can do that. The 'march of economics' is usually just the 'march of reality'. Game of Thrones is expensive to make - ultimately, people have to get paid for it somehow. Most creative/entertainment projects are a dud. Only a few even make money.

ashark 9y ago

If someone launches a new HTML-based Web with crippled javascript (no network comm access, for one, including ability to trigger links or forms), some small, restricted subset of CSS, and much better built-in dynamic table and form elements, I'm there. This Web's about to be eaten by DRM and WebAssembly anyway. Pretty soon it'll just be a way to deliver QT apps (or some other framework that runs in WebAssembly and renders to OpenGL or similar) and video. A web where the only thing you'll find when you follow a link is more documents (or a download) and pages can't try to make your computer do a bunch of stuff you don't want it to would be nice to have again, and it's clear now that the system itself has to ban the capabilities that enable all the garbage, or it'll take over.

EGreg 9y ago
Wait, what? Perhaps you are right, but how do you make the leap from "W3C standardizes DRM" and "the Web is about to be eaten by DRM?" The Web is used for so many things these days. It is a publishing platform that allows anyone to host their own content to the entire internet, thanks to Web Browsers just loading it. I can see IPFS being an improvement over the Web but besides the web server being a single point of failure, why is a DRM standard specifically going to destroy the Web? Wordpress is used to power 20% of new sites. My own company is developing an open source platform for communities to run their own social networks (https://qbix.com https://qbix.com) so what is this "eating" you speak of? EDIT: This has been one of my most downvoted comments ever. Can someone explain the rationale? (Is it super obvious that the Web will be killed by DRM that asking the question should be punished?)
- ashark 9y ago
  DRM and webassembly. The end of openness in both cases—though at least WebAssembly means we eventually won't have to write Javascript anymore, which is nice as far as that goes. Sure, Javascript uglifiers and frameworks mucking with HTML standards and the DOM had already made "view source" nigh-worthless, and there were DRM'd plugins of course, and browsers had supported some schemes for a while as a de facto standard, but this still feels like a last-straw kind of situation to me. > My own company is developing an open source platform for communities to run their own social networks (https://qbix.com https://qbix.com) so what is this "eating" you speak of? Sure, it's already the world's premiere delivery mechanism for "apps", advertisements, and mass surveillance software. I know. That's exactly the kind of thing that I don't mind living somewhere, but I'd like it not to be all mixed up in my networked hypertext document reader. This Web's over. Anyone hosting an After-Web? I could do with a little more Webbing. [EDIT] Though actually your thing seems fine. I saw "social network" and glossed over the rest. Sorry.

justonepost 9y ago

It's digital serfdom, pure and simple. Rather than letting us own, they want us to pay rent. It's the electronic feudal lords looking out for one another. This lawyer explains it well: http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-new-feudalism-why-internet-things-marks-660102 http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-...

orblivion 9y ago

Whether or not there's actual corruption, it's inevitable (in my opinion) that this sort of thing would happen. It's the march of economics. The open web just doesn't allow suppliers to meet demand. One way or another they'll find a way to do it. DRM snuck in the door via Flash. We just about stamped it out, but wouldn't you know it somehow it came back in a more insidious (if innocuous looking) form. People on our side like to claim that DRM is a foolish business model, but I'm not convinced that they're not just deluding themselves. Whatever the answer is, I don't think it's stopping DRM with brute force. I think it will need to involve either coming up with alternate business models that are anywhere near as viable, or a way to keep it in a box to use for the few applications that really benefit from it.

kelvin0 9y ago

BBS on HAM Radio? I've been toying with the idea for a while. The exact stack is not clear yet, but it has to 'liberate' me from the current web/internet insanity. It could be slow and imperfect, but dammit it would be ours again.

ebcode 9y ago
Yes! sign me up. :)

marcoperaza 9y ago

>This is flat out CORRUPTION That's a hell of an accusation. And you should present evidence if you're going to level it. It is dishonorable to make baseless attacks on people's character and integrity.

sogen 9y ago

This will only lead to an eternal Copyright Term Extension Act for online content...

xvilka 9y ago

Not exactly a corruption, it is just world doesnt belong to national governments - only to corporations. That wont change any time soon and will only worsen.

Iv 9y ago

We have lost it: P2P should have been the future of internet. Instead it devolved into the "connect to a server for everything" cloud system. Internet should be like ZeroNet: a serverless system where content of interest is shared by its millions of viewers and where servers only use a small amount of bandwidth as backups and initial seeders. That the wikipedia still needs servers and asks donations yearly to keep them online is a testament to how stalled progress in internet infrastructure is today.

mfukar 9y ago

I don't think it's as subtle as it is incoherent. I've yet to see a single article putting together the harm of DRM in terms tangible to a layman.