FSF: “Tell W3C: We don’t want the Hollyweb”
“We call on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and its member organizations to reject the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal (EME), which would incorporate support for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) into HTML.
EME would be an irreversible step backward for freedom on the Web. It would endorse and enable business models that unethically restrict users, and it would make subjugation to particular media companies a precondition for full Web citizenship. Just as Flash and Silverlight are finally dying off, we should not replace them with the media giants’ latest control fantasy.
Furthermore, EME contradicts the W3C’s core values. It would hamper interoperability by encouraging the proliferation of DRM plugins. It would fly in the face of the W3C’s principle of keeping the Web royalty-free — this is simply a back door for media companies to require proprietary player software. It is willful ignorance to pretend otherwise just because the proposal does not mention particular technologies or DRM schemes by name.
W3C and member organizations: don’t weave DRM into the fabric of the Web.”
It is no lack of freedom to be able to choose DRM or not. It is lack of freedom for a provider to NOT be able to choose DRM or not. The enduser will in the best case not notify if the video he watches is DRMed or not, but he will notify that he doesnt need to update Flash or download Silverlight or an extra app….
It would endorse and enable business models that ethically support those who make their living in the film industry.
Christian,
Sites can implement DRM themselves without EME; in fact, Netflix (one of the EME sponsors) already has.
So why does the W3C need to endorse DRM by providing EME?
Yours,
Duncan