I find it somewhat awesome that this whole html drm debacle is effectively what Richard Stallman has been saying for decades versus outdated entrenched old media interests. Except in this case, the web standards consortium is giving away your freedom for you.

That is what pisses me off most, really - if big media was left to squalor in broken plugins and horrible drm, which should be horrible because its entirely anti-user, they would have to eventually adapt to the Internet and change their ways or die.

But with the power of money and apathy on the part of vast swathes of the tech community that think they don't have ground to stand on (hint: you are the consumers they want buying stuff, you hold all the cards) they are ending the open inter-operable web. It sucks.

Yes it sucks, but it's not too late.

The issue of patents in W3C standards came up a decade ago; it looked like the W3C had caved then, but a 'firestorm of public criticism' (to quote an article at the time) caused them to back down.

So, agitate. Tell people about it. Bring it up at user groups. Post to Hacker News :) If you know anyone in tech. journalism, tell them. Support the EFF.

Also remember it isn't the W3C as an entity that is really the problem — it's convincing a majority of member organizations of the W3C that is the problem. The W3C is just an industrial consortium, and will do what the industry wants. If that's DRM, that's DRM.

What happened with patents and what needs to happen now is to convince the majority of members who have no entrenched opinion that they should be against this work happening at the W3C (which by no means guarantees the work will stop — it may well just move to another venue, quite possibly closed, and still de-facto become part of the Web Platform), and that they should oppose this at the AC level, who ultimately control the direction of the W3C. (The AC, essentially, has one representative from each and every member organization.)

> they are ending the open inter-operable web. It sucks.

I don't know what web you have been browsing, but as far as I can see, HTML5 is just now starting to replace flash for online video and audio. I am much sooner ready to support EME over flash, if it helps that transition, despite the ridiculous ineffectiveness and inconvenience of DRM.

Why do you suppose that EME + CDMs will be a better solution than Flash? What advantages do you expect?

I see EME as a way of reducing the area which DRM can affect. It is a sanely designed box around an insane (but persistent) concept. Whereas flash applies usage restrictions to the whole environment, EME is strictly for streaming video and audio, and encourages the rest of the system to be developed with open technologies (HTML5 and JS). It is the minimum evil necessary to meet the requirements of the existing contractual obligations that cause DRM to exist.

Why do you assume that EME is strictly for streaming video and audio? Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types.

Also, you're assuming that it is necessary. We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret.

Finally, there's no reason that, in order for work on EME to proceed, the W3C has to compromise itself or the Open Web. It'll happen regardless of the W3C.

> Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types.

Sorry, I guess "strictly" was the wrong word. Rather, it is designed particularly for the streaming video use case.

> We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret.

True. But I think a pretty good idea can be had just by looking at the current state of the industry.

> It'll happen regardless of the W3C.

Exactly. Having the W3C head the initiative is the best thing that could happen to it, short of it not existing (which as you say is impossible). Not compromising on ideals is nice, but not when it stands in the way of what is best for the user (or in this case, least bad).

Do you want to buy and run windows 9? Because to see the new series of the game of thrones only windows 9's CDMs can read it. That is the kind web you are negotiating for.

How long do you think MS would back port these things to win7 before they bump their minimumContentPlayer=win8 and then that's it you're not seeing any of that media to you pay up.

Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs, it will just be a major version behind, 6 months late and kind of buggy.

>Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs

Even that's a bit hopeful imho - consider how easy it is to imagine an advert declaring "Game of Thrones Season 5: Exclusive to Apple!"... Hell, it could be worse - "Only on Intel"?

> That is the kind web you are negotiating for.

As discussed, that is a motivation that will exist regardless of the W3C's course of action. What I am negotiating for is the W3C being in charge of what access these "big bad companies" have over web standards, rather than allowing the development of similar technologies to continue unmoderated.

The fact that EME is being seriously entertained by the W3C should tell you everything you need to know about the power relationships there. I don't think there's as much 'being in charge' as you think there might be.

>> Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs, it will just be a major version behind, 6 months late and kind of buggy.

And only supported on 32 bit intel machines!

Wouldn't another option simply be making it so that Netflix et al are in a position that they can't move forward to these new standards with their licensed stuff, but everyone else can? Them being the only ones left using Flash/Silverlight would probably give them a good incentive to push back on their contracts...

So the system the way they intend it won't work, which means you won't get the content anyway.

Let's not get lost in semantics here.