You may heard that the W3C is giving the WWW label to DRM-based content vendors in HTML5: W3C presses ahead with DRM interface in HTML5
From the post:
On Friday, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) published the first public draft of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). EME enables content providers to integrate digital rights management (DRM) interfaces into HTML5-based media players. Encrypted Media Extensions is being developed jointly by Google, Microsoft and online streaming-service Netflix. No actual encryption algorithm is part of the draft; that element is designed to be contained in a CDM (Content Decryption Module) that works with EME to decode the content. CDMs may be plugins or built into browsers.
The publication of the new draft is a blow for critics of the extensions, led by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Under the slogan, “We don’t want the Hollyweb”, FSF’s anti-DRM campaign Defective by Design has started a petition against the “disastrous proposal”, though FSF and allied organisations have so far only succeeded in mobilising half of their target of 50,000 supporters.
I could understand this better if the W3C was getting paid by the DRM-based content vendors for the WWW label. Giving it away to commercial profiteers seems like poor business judgement.
On the order of the U.S. government developing the public internet and then giving it away as it became commercially viable. As one of the involuntary investors in the U.S. government, I would have liked a better return on that investment.
There is one fairly easy way to defeat DRM in HTML5.
Don’t use it. Don’t view/purchase products that use it, don’t produce products or services that use it.
The people who produce and sell DRM-based products will find other ways to occupy themselves should DRM-based products fail.
Unlike the FSF, they are not producing products for obscure motives. They are looking to make a profit. No profit, no DRM-vendors.
You may say that “other people” will purchase those products and services, encouraging DRM vendors. They very well may but that’s their choice.
It is unconvincing to argue for a universe of free choice when some people get to choose on behalf of others, like the public.