@BryanLunduke 1) How is EME going to be any better or worse than letting each individual company develop their own DRM? 2) With W3C-approved DRM and recent motions against net neutrality, is the Internet really headed toward becoming the new "big cable" with pay-as-you-go blockades at every turn?
@BryanLunduke Yeah, I have thoughts on it. What the hell is Berners-Lee thinking? I guess big money does shout much louder than freedom does. We might as well turn into our internet infrastructure into that of China's or North Korea. I mean, this isn't quite there, but this is one of the first steps. This is a sad day indeed.
@BryanLunduke 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.
@BryanLunduke I've not heard much discussion about how the W3C EME spec will effect text content. It seems to me that EME could easily be used to DRM text content and by extension shut down the internet's ability to share and comment on said text legally. This aspect in particular worries me more than standardizing DRM of multimedia content. Thoughts on DRMing of text using EME?
@BryanLunduke It's imperative that we don't concede an inch to this corporate overreach. The internet's position in our society is still in its early days, all things considered (i.e. Amazon's "it's still day one" saying), and the web standard foundations laid by convention today will have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences well into the future. The automotive industry did this less than a century ago, for instance. (Net neutrality is a similarly important battleground right now.)
If Berners-Lee is on board with EME DRM, I think he is no longer a suitable leader for the W3C, as this decision sits in stark contrast to its core mission.
IMO, DRM is harmful in and of itself, and as a web standard will - step by step - kill the internet sharing culture. It will also exclude and isolate groups of people from participating in the general, global culture. And all this is propelled first and foremost by corporate greed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZNSzWIaLo&ab_channel=Samsungs760 What else is there to say?
I think only WE as users/consumers can reject any product that uses DRM. I would not buy music, games, videos that have DRM.
The same way, I will choose not to surf in a website that forces DRM (unless I am somehow unaware of it).
1) Detect and List the offenders
2) Isolate (and definitely don't reward) the offenders