6 ms·

Funny that most of those "ideals" of theirs are directly contradicted by their support for DRM. Being a "force for good", "inclusive", "respectful to its users"

by mort96 4y ago

Funny that most of those "ideals" of theirs are directly contradicted by their support for DRM. Being a "force for good", "inclusive", "respectful to its users", "people rather than profits", "that works for everyone"? Utter bullshit. Profits for media conglomerates are clearly more important to them than all of those values.

lucideer 4y ago
While it's a shame that support for DRM went through, this is an org that's already suffering criticism for being "irrelevant", through no fault of their own other than a bunch of large rich corporations decided to throw their efforts behind a more expedient force (WHATWG). It's understandable to see why they would fear the same happening with DRM (implementers decided to go with non-W3 specs in order to add DRM support). The above comment is a perfect example: criticising the W3C for being a "fsking mess" due to forces outside of their control (the ownership of web tech by a very small number of very wealthy web client corporations). It's just the way things have gone.
- mort96 4y ago
  I could forgive it if their stance was simply, "this is unfortunate but there is nothing we can do about it". But that wasn't their stance. Tim Berners-Lee (you know, the director of the W3C) was publicly endorsing DRM. You're right that the W3C has no actual power to dictate what gets standardised anymore; they squandered that, so now only WHATWG's word matters in the end. The only power the W3C has is their ability to influence public opinion, their voice is still rather meaningful in the public debate. They could've used that voice for good, taking the side of the EFF and other pro-freedom organisations to denounce DRM. In the end, they would have had to begrudgingly accept WHATWG's DRM standard if it came to that, but they could've made it clear along the way that it's a terrible idea. This would've put them squarely in the pro-open-web camp, and would've made it clear to the public that the WHATWG is in the anti-open-web camp. Or they could've stayed out of the discussion, accepted their irrelevance, and just adopted the W3C spec. But they chose to actively enter the public debate around DRM in favour of this user-hostile, anti-open-web standard. They chose to use their influence to convince people that DRM is a good thing. They're on the record as being in favour of a web where it is impossible to make a proper open-source web browser which can render any standard web page. In my book, the W3C's stance is clear as day: they're actively hostile to an open web, and they're prepared to spend any influence they might have to fight against it.
CharlieDigital 4y ago
> ...by their support for DRM I'm going to be Devil's advocate here and say that DRM ostensibly protects the IP of content originators who I think we'd agree should be rewarded for investing in or creating that content. Perhaps you have some other scheme or perspective on how content originators/creators can/could/should monetize their IP without DRM? Genuinely curious what alternative schemes are viable for protecting and rewarding content creators. (Yes; let's all acknowledge that even with DRM, pirating still exists)
- IgorPartola 4y ago
  As far as I can tell, piracy exists for exactly two reasons: 1. Content is priced way the fuck higher than market value. 2. Content is so encumbered that it is difficult to even get it or use it. The way I see it is that #1 is not a problem for content creators. It is relatively rare compared to people buying content and the person who would rather download an episode of The Office rather than paying Apple $1.99 for it was unlikely to pay if that was the only option in the first place. Their alternative to piracy isn’t to spend the money. It’s to watch something else. As for #2, it is a self-inflicted wound. There was a time when the 6th Harry Potter movie was about to come out in theaters. I wanted to do a marathon watch of the first 5 movies with my family. I had the first 4 on DVD and wanted to buy the 5th. I checked all streaming services and none had it. In fact it appeared that some removed it a month prior. I then called several nearby stores and all were sold out. A store 20 miles away had a copy for $40. After spending nearly an hour to find this out, I spent 5 minutes downloading it off a torrent site. Maybe indestructible your content will net you more money even if you have some of your content pirated.
  - CharlieDigital 4y ago
    Are either of these true? For $17/mo, I can access an endless stream of content on Netflix. This is way cheaper than I remember my cable subscriptions used to be (if we consider the cost of Internet access as fixed in either case). Verizon is even offering to throw in Hulu, Disney+, and a bunch of other streaming services "free" if I switch to FIOS + mobile. I can watch Netflix on my phone, tablet, PC, TV, Chromecast, Roku, Apple TV. I can watch any show, any time I want, as many seasons and episodes as I want. 24x7x365. Is it really encumbered? Aside from IP owners walling off their services, content -- as long as you pay for it -- flows more freely now than ever, IMO. If I go to an Airbnb, I can log into my Netflix account and watch all of my shows. I can log into my Amazon account and watch all of my purchased movies. (Just don't forget to log out!) Yes; I can't watch it offline or if I'm in a location with poor Internet speeds. But that is such a small fraction of my time that it hardly registers. Yes; my right to view content I've paid for can be revoked in some circumstance I'm sure, but it's never once happened to me.
IncRnd 4y ago
"This is the complete list of patent disclosures and exclusions that have been made through IPP, for all W3C groups." [1] The latest 26 patents (the 2021 patents) are all in Apple's name. It's pretty clear what they do, which is different from the marketing speak. [1] https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/patents https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/patents
charcircuit 4y ago
DRM protects content creators from copyright infringement. Protecting against copyright infringement, something which is illegal and can hurt creators, is a force for good. DRM would exist on the web with or without standardization from the W3C.
- mort96 4y ago
  DRM is the epitome of prioritizing profits rather than people and disrespecting users. In search of profits for their stakeholders, the WHATWG and the W3C has made it impossible to make an open source web browser which can render standard web pages.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Disrespecting users? As if users stealing your content is not disrespectful to the owners of it. You can not just selectively ignore groups of stakeholders whom you are not a member of. The web should be made good for everyone. >the WHATWG and the W3C has made it impossible to make an open source web browser which can render standard web pages. Chromium is an open source browser which can do that.
    - mort96 4y ago
      Chromium can render DRM content using a closed source component. An open source browser can not render standard web pages, because DRM is part of the standard and DRM requires a closed-source component.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        You are free to make an open source CDM and convince people to use it, but good luck with that.
        mort96 4y ago
        I believe your comment supports my argument.
bdougherty 4y ago
DRM is not good, but if they didn't specify DRM, it would still end up in browsers as proprietary methods, or it's possible proprietary browser plugins like Flash would have continued to exist. Unfortunately, you can't just make the people pushing for DRM go away by not specifying it.

by mort96 4y ago

lucideer 4y ago

While it's a shame that support for DRM went through, this is an org that's already suffering criticism for being "irrelevant", through no fault of their own other than a bunch of large rich corporations decided to throw their efforts behind a more expedient force (WHATWG). It's understandable to see why they would fear the same happening with DRM (implementers decided to go with non-W3 specs in order to add DRM support). The above comment is a perfect example: criticising the W3C for being a "fsking mess" due to forces outside of their control (the ownership of web tech by a very small number of very wealthy web client corporations). It's just the way things have gone.

mort96 4y ago
I could forgive it if their stance was simply, "this is unfortunate but there is nothing we can do about it". But that wasn't their stance. Tim Berners-Lee (you know, the director of the W3C) was publicly endorsing DRM. You're right that the W3C has no actual power to dictate what gets standardised anymore; they squandered that, so now only WHATWG's word matters in the end. The only power the W3C has is their ability to influence public opinion, their voice is still rather meaningful in the public debate. They could've used that voice for good, taking the side of the EFF and other pro-freedom organisations to denounce DRM. In the end, they would have had to begrudgingly accept WHATWG's DRM standard if it came to that, but they could've made it clear along the way that it's a terrible idea. This would've put them squarely in the pro-open-web camp, and would've made it clear to the public that the WHATWG is in the anti-open-web camp. Or they could've stayed out of the discussion, accepted their irrelevance, and just adopted the W3C spec. But they chose to actively enter the public debate around DRM in favour of this user-hostile, anti-open-web standard. They chose to use their influence to convince people that DRM is a good thing. They're on the record as being in favour of a web where it is impossible to make a proper open-source web browser which can render any standard web page. In my book, the W3C's stance is clear as day: they're actively hostile to an open web, and they're prepared to spend any influence they might have to fight against it.

CharlieDigital 4y ago

> ...by their support for DRM I'm going to be Devil's advocate here and say that DRM ostensibly protects the IP of content originators who I think we'd agree should be rewarded for investing in or creating that content. Perhaps you have some other scheme or perspective on how content originators/creators can/could/should monetize their IP without DRM? Genuinely curious what alternative schemes are viable for protecting and rewarding content creators. (Yes; let's all acknowledge that even with DRM, pirating still exists)

IgorPartola 4y ago
As far as I can tell, piracy exists for exactly two reasons: 1. Content is priced way the fuck higher than market value. 2. Content is so encumbered that it is difficult to even get it or use it. The way I see it is that #1 is not a problem for content creators. It is relatively rare compared to people buying content and the person who would rather download an episode of The Office rather than paying Apple $1.99 for it was unlikely to pay if that was the only option in the first place. Their alternative to piracy isn’t to spend the money. It’s to watch something else. As for #2, it is a self-inflicted wound. There was a time when the 6th Harry Potter movie was about to come out in theaters. I wanted to do a marathon watch of the first 5 movies with my family. I had the first 4 on DVD and wanted to buy the 5th. I checked all streaming services and none had it. In fact it appeared that some removed it a month prior. I then called several nearby stores and all were sold out. A store 20 miles away had a copy for $40. After spending nearly an hour to find this out, I spent 5 minutes downloading it off a torrent site. Maybe indestructible your content will net you more money even if you have some of your content pirated.
- CharlieDigital 4y ago
  Are either of these true? For $17/mo, I can access an endless stream of content on Netflix. This is way cheaper than I remember my cable subscriptions used to be (if we consider the cost of Internet access as fixed in either case). Verizon is even offering to throw in Hulu, Disney+, and a bunch of other streaming services "free" if I switch to FIOS + mobile. I can watch Netflix on my phone, tablet, PC, TV, Chromecast, Roku, Apple TV. I can watch any show, any time I want, as many seasons and episodes as I want. 24x7x365. Is it really encumbered? Aside from IP owners walling off their services, content -- as long as you pay for it -- flows more freely now than ever, IMO. If I go to an Airbnb, I can log into my Netflix account and watch all of my shows. I can log into my Amazon account and watch all of my purchased movies. (Just don't forget to log out!) Yes; I can't watch it offline or if I'm in a location with poor Internet speeds. But that is such a small fraction of my time that it hardly registers. Yes; my right to view content I've paid for can be revoked in some circumstance I'm sure, but it's never once happened to me.

IncRnd 4y ago

"This is the complete list of patent disclosures and exclusions that have been made through IPP, for all W3C groups." [1] The latest 26 patents (the 2021 patents) are all in Apple's name. It's pretty clear what they do, which is different from the marketing speak. [1] https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/patents https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/patents

charcircuit 4y ago

DRM protects content creators from copyright infringement. Protecting against copyright infringement, something which is illegal and can hurt creators, is a force for good. DRM would exist on the web with or without standardization from the W3C.

mort96 4y ago
DRM is the epitome of prioritizing profits rather than people and disrespecting users. In search of profits for their stakeholders, the WHATWG and the W3C has made it impossible to make an open source web browser which can render standard web pages.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Disrespecting users? As if users stealing your content is not disrespectful to the owners of it. You can not just selectively ignore groups of stakeholders whom you are not a member of. The web should be made good for everyone. >the WHATWG and the W3C has made it impossible to make an open source web browser which can render standard web pages. Chromium is an open source browser which can do that.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Chromium can render DRM content using a closed source component. An open source browser can not render standard web pages, because DRM is part of the standard and DRM requires a closed-source component.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      You are free to make an open source CDM and convince people to use it, but good luck with that.
      - mort96 4y ago
        I believe your comment supports my argument.

bdougherty 4y ago

DRM is not good, but if they didn't specify DRM, it would still end up in browsers as proprietary methods, or it's possible proprietary browser plugins like Flash would have continued to exist. Unfortunately, you can't just make the people pushing for DRM go away by not specifying it.