W3C going through with adding DRM to HTML


diligentcircle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,594
Age
30
Location
Milky Way galaxy
Website
onpon4.github.io
I'm sort of surprised that there isn't a topic about this here already.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is going through with a proposal called "Electronic Media Extensions" (EME), which is an attempt to incorporate Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) into HTML itself by standardizing a way to load "Content Decryption Modules" (CDMs), which are nonstandard extensions that would be used to play media files that have DRM.

So, in a nutshell, EME is a standard for loading nonstandard extensions to incorporate DRM.

This will probably not cause a significant change in the Web. The problem with incorporating DRM into HTML itself is that it acts as a rather explicit endorsement by the W3C, which is a standards committee that is supposed to be supporting the free and open web, of technology which deliberately restricts users and hurts interoperability. If corporations want to require proprietary software with DRM for people to play their videos, it should be their responsibility to do it on their own time, with their own money; the W3C should not be helping them.

More information can be found here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/defend-open-web-keep-drm-out-w3c-standards

https://www.fsf.org/news/world-wide-web-consortium-takes-next-step-with-controversial-drm-proposal-defective-by-design-condemns-decision

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/stepping-it-up-against-the-hollyweb
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If enough people make a case about it then any corporation will find another soln. If we don't like silver light, find a way around it or don't use the associated service. This is a standard for loading the module that would be decrypting the media, and not a DRM handler embedded in HTML. I don't see the big deal...this is like the debate over the video tag and deciding if they were to have vp8 be standard or not restrict any other codecs.
 
There already was a standard way of loading non-standard, proprietary elements. This is just more explicit in its use and therefore more compatible. Basically it means that, if they follow the standard, the Silverlight plugin will work on any browser that also follows the standard, instead of the current "we support IE and Firefox and everyone else can just fek off".

Of course it still requires an architecture compatible plugin, but baby steps. I don't like the implicit endorsement but I can't help but feel like some standardization is better than nothing.

As monstercameron says, this is just the video/audio tag debate all over again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and yet most everything will still be available through torrent sites and such, so who cares?
 
Back
Top