The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has decided to move forward with its plans of adding DRM to its HTML5 standard. This has tremendous implications against users of the internet because browsers would be able to deny access to specific content, deny the downloading of images through JavaScript (save as button on most websites), or other functionality that would not longer be in control of the user, but rather the individual websites who are included in the DRM framework. This controversial Encrypted Media Extension (EME) is planned on being added to the new HTML 5.1 standard. The proposal was introduced by Tim Burners Lee, pioneer who is often accredited of being the father of the internet. The EFF says that control of the user agent (web browser in W3C vernacular) would now be in control of the content distributors. Hollywood media creators have pushed for DRM hard in past years and many believed that they had eased up their efforts. Time and time again DRM proved to be inefficient in preventing piracy and made it inconvenient for paying customers to access their content due to various technical issues. The ability to view website source code would be removed from the browser which is another effort of trying to prevent users from being understand what is truly happening in their browser. Other HTML standards such as xHTML and WHATWG's "HTML Living Standard" will likely see an increase of use to circumvent DRM restrictions where possible. It will be likely when the standard comes out to see browser developers such as Mozilla, Google, and Opera offering W3C compliant content protection for web media content.
(note: I wouldn't have been able to get this image with the DRM in place)
Past attempts to add similar DRM restraints to the web, like the attempt to add embedded web fonts five years ago, failed to be "in scope" for the W3C. Now that the "playback of protected content" is now in scope, proposals like this and others that had previously been denied would be able to make a case to the standards board. DRM tries to behave like other web standards but add restrictions by including legal mandates that quell technologist's speech, locking down the technology to solely its creators. Advertisements would no longer be able to be blocked and could lock down other web interactions, forcing you to watch it. Content creators could say their content could be only offered on platform "X" (e.g OsX or Windows8) which would greatly hinder the interoperability of the web and force users to adhere to corporate interests. The web was founded by a fair use policy and many licenses exist that promote this ideal. Tim Burners Lee often says when he explains how he created the internet that he had no permission to do it. This is often used as a parable to explain the importance of an open and neutral internet but this recent proposal goes against everything he created. Tim's argument is that this is a necessary step to keep companies using the HTML standard to put their content on the web rather than through technologies such as Flash or avoiding to put their "premium" content on the web at all. DRM is notorious for preventing innovation on the web due to its closed nature and giving in to the never ending demands and threats from content creators will do nothing but give the future of the web over to corporations who don't understand technology. The piracy fighting effects of DRM are statistically proven to be minimal, however; content owners will continue do whatever they can (now going after standards committees after failing to lobby congress) to gain power on the web.
src:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards
No comments:
Post a Comment