Amid Unprecedented Controversy, W3C Greenlights DRM for the Web - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]Early today, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards body [URL="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2017Jul/0000.html"]publicly announced[/URL] its intention to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)—a DRM standard for web video—with no safeguards whatsoever for accessibility, security research or competition, despite an unprecedented internal controversy among its staff and members over this issue. EME is a standardized way for web video platforms to control users' browsers, so that we can only watch the videos under rules they set. This kind of technology, commonly called Digital Rights Management (DRM), is backed up by laws like the United States DMCA Section 1201 (most other countries also have laws like this). [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its campaign Defective by Design have opposed EME since its inception because it infringes on Web users' control of their own computers, and weakens their security and privacy. A [URL="https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/eme_letter_frank_la_rue.pdf"]UN official[/URL], a [URL="https://boingboing.net/2017/04/12/global-south-vs-drm.html"]group of human rights defenders[/URL], and a litany of noted security researchers and Internet scholars, have also objected to EME's approval without additional protections for vulnerable activities and groups. EME is supported by Netflix, Google, Microsoft, and Apple, as well as the Motion Picture Association of America, all of whom made financial contributions to the W3C. [SUP]1[/SUP] Opponents' last opportunity to stop EME is an appeal by the Advisory Committee of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body which Tim Berners-Lee heads. Requiring 5% of the Committee's [URL="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List"]475 members[/URL] (corporate, nonprofit, and educational institutions) to sign on within a two-week period, the appeal would then trigger a vote from the whole Committee to make a final decision to ratify or reject EME. "W3C member organizations must take responsibility for the digital rights of Web users and appeal Tim Berners-Lee's disastrous decision," said FSF campaigns manager Zak Rogoff. "Standards-setters' top priorities should be user freedom, privacy, security, interoperability and accessibility, not helping Hollywood and streaming companies make their anti-user DRM more efficient. If you have any personal connection to a [URL="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List"]W3C member organization[/URL], we encourage you to contact them immediately about appealing." If EME is ratified by the W3C, the FSF expects it to cause a long-term increase in the amount of DRM on the Web, by simplifying the DRM implementation process for streaming services. That would invite more abuses of users like the Digital Editions DRM, which was found to be [URL="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/adobe-spyware-reveals-again-price-drm-your-privacy-and-security"]exposing user information to snoopers[/URL], and more digital handcuffs preventing legal uses of media, like accessibility modifications, translation, commentary, and archiving. [/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web[/URL]

This is a step in the wrong direction.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52452024]This is a step in the wrong direction.[/QUOTE] DRM was a mistake.

Guys what the fuck is happening here

I wonder how much they were paid to greenlight this.

[QUOTE]As for the W3C... we're working on it. There is an appeals process for Tim Berners-Lee's decisions at the W3C, which has never been successfully triggered. The entire project of designing technology to control web users, rather than empowering them, has taken the W3C into uncharted waters, and this is the most unfamiliar of them all. We're looking into this, counting noses, and assessing our options. We'll keep you informed.[/QUOTE] By "uncharted waters" they mean a whirlpool that leads straight to the bottom of the ocean.

I'd say "it begins" but honestly who's surprised. Shits just gonna get worse in terms of internet freedom.

Say goodbye to adblock! Sadly knew it couldn't last. Imo proxies and anonymizing VPNs are next on the chopping block. We've lived in the wild west days of the internet, but it looks like that's coming to an end.

[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;52452087][noparse][quote][/noparse] By "uncharted waters" they mean a whirlpool that leads straight to the bottom of the ocean.[/QUOTE] On that note, a blind person just won a case against a (retail) store website because they couldn't use it. The US is also very strict regarding online video accesibility, so it's going to be interesting to see if these systems will meet the legal requirements.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52452107]Say goodbye to adblock! Sadly knew it couldn't last. Imo proxies and anonymizing VPNs are next on the chopping block. We've lived in the wild west days of the internet, but it looks like that's coming to an end.[/QUOTE] Sorry for not being informed. But, doesn't this only affect videos though? How much of an impact with this have on adblockers? We talking in a sense "You blocked an ad on a video. That violates the DRM. We are gonna sue you now."

Keep in mind this DRM is going to be a HUGE gateway for malware, viruses, ransomware etc. I'd get a few hard drives and pile up all the shit you want now, especially before your ISP thinks of putting a data cap on you. Furthermore, since it appears that DRM will be browser-based, I'd recommend looking around for some forks of both Firefox and Chrome. If the browser companies aren't going to fight this, you should try to get a fork of their browser before it's implemented.

Watch it be completely useless and broken in 1 day and will only be a burden/threat to legitimate customers.

Man some people are trying really hard to kill the internet and leave nothing left but a corporate and government controlled husk.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52452128]Sorry for not being informed. But, doesn't this only affect videos though? How much of an impact with this have on adblockers? We talking in a sense "You blocked an ad on a video. That violates the DRM. We are gonna sue you now."[/QUOTE] It'll be able to prevent you from blocking the ad in the first place. Then this "control" will extend to the whole page, and you can't block ads anywhere. It cuts into their profits, and if they could criminalize it they would. VPNs are a much easier-to-justify target in that respect, the UK is already floating the idea of restricting them to fight terrorism.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52452198][B]It'll be able to prevent you from blocking the ad in the first place.[/B] Then this "control" will extend to the whole page, and you can't block ads anywhere. It cuts into their profits, and if they could criminalize it they would. VPNs are a much easier-to-justify target in that respect, the UK is already floating the idea of restricting them to fight terrorism.[/QUOTE] Oh boy I can't wait for more than half of my mobile data to be wasted on 50 bullshit data sucking ads on every page I touch.

Maybe a good opportunity to switch to using WHATWG's standard specification instead of W3C.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52452391]How long until people find a workaround? I give it 24 hours[/QUOTE] The workaround is setting up a HOSTS file or compile without drm protection.

How long until people find a workaround? I give it 24 hours

Please email and spam whoever is in charge of maintaining mainstream browsers not to implement this fucking garbage.

Can't wait until I have to crack my fucking browser just to watch youtube videos without ads :/

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;52452594]Can't wait until I have to crack my fucking browser just to watch youtube videos without ads :/[/QUOTE] Considering Mozilla's constant free-web preaching I sincerely doubt they'd implement such a thing.

[QUOTE=gk99;52452608]Considering Mozilla's constant free-web preaching I sincerely doubt they'd implement such a thing.[/QUOTE] Are you sure about that ? Firefox Nightly has had this option for quite a while: [img]https://nabile.s-ul.eu/dFhQlxfA.png[/img]

As long as this is for video and music only I don't care

[QUOTE=Nabile13;52452616]Are you sure about that ? Firefox Nightly has had this option for quite a while: [img]https://nabile.s-ul.eu/dFhQlxfA.png[/img][/QUOTE] For shit like movies you can buy on sites like Google Play/YouTube. It's either have that option or tell you to fuck off to Google Chrome or something. [editline]a[/editline] [t]http://i.imgur.com/b7jSRCX.png[/t] This is what you get if you turn that option off and try to watch a movie purchased from Google Play.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52452198]It'll be able to prevent you from blocking the ad in the first place. Then this "control" will extend to the whole page, and you can't block ads anywhere. It cuts into their profits, and if they could criminalize it they would. VPNs are a much easier-to-justify target in that respect, the UK is already floating the idea of restricting them to fight terrorism.[/QUOTE] uhhh... what? firefox and chrome are open source. it's insanely easy to remove/disable it. [URL="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2017Jul/0000.html"]spec[/URL]: [QUOTE]Additionally, as with all W3C Recommendations, implementation is voluntary. A browser not implementing EME will not have the benefit of enhanced access to protected content, but will otherwise be able to perform like any other browser for non-protected content. [/QUOTE] no idea where you're getting the ad thing from, DRM can't prevent you from blocking something/editing the DOM. the idea is that you get a key to decode the stream you're watching that's locked to your machine. it's a lot how steam works when decrypting/playing a game, but invisible to you. [QUOTE=chipsnapper2;52452154]Keep in mind this DRM is going to be a HUGE gateway for malware, viruses, ransomware etc. I'd get a few hard drives and pile up all the shit you want now, especially before your ISP thinks of putting a data cap on you. Furthermore, since it appears that DRM will be browser-based, I'd recommend looking around for some forks of both Firefox and Chrome. If the browser companies aren't going to fight this, you should try to get a fork of their browser before it's implemented.[/QUOTE] it's ideally run in a sandbox, and has other tight security restrictions -- read the spec [URL="https://www.w3.org/2017/07/eme-rec-draft.html#cdm-constraint-requirements"]here[/URL]. be aware you won't be able to watch stuff like hbo or other streaming services if you use a fork that implements this spec.

It's about time we start a new internet - the idea has been around for a while but lets do the whole stack, then With blackjack And hookers And less utilities for anticompetitive, anticonsumerist, al antidemocratic meddling

This is probably going to trigger a big push towards a decentralized internet or decentralized hosting.

[QUOTE=gk99;52452608]Considering Mozilla's constant free-web preaching I sincerely doubt they'd implement such a thing.[/QUOTE] Mozilla hasn't given a shit about the free web since they 'reorganized' their leadership.

We gotta keep fighting this. This isn't something they should get away with.

[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52452168]Watch it be completely useless and broken in 1 day and will only be a burden/threat to legitimate customers.[/QUOTE] It was already implemented before it was even accepted, it's already broken, it only works on select platforms because the standard is just a way to communicate with DRM, not the DRM itself, which means if the DRM component is not available for your platform you are out of luck. [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Kyle902;52452391]How long until people find a workaround? I give it 24 hours[/QUOTE] EME is old, people have been pirating EME protected content for years. [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52452855]We gotta keep fighting this. This isn't something they should get away with.[/QUOTE] It's going to be hard now, we had over a year and they didn't listen we have two weeks for the appeal, here's the FSF's article which explains that too: [url]http://defectivebydesign.org/blog/tim_bernerslee_approves_web_drm_w3c_member_organizations_have_two_weeks_appeal[/url]