Was the end of the Web as we know it? THE Sir Tim Berners-LeeWeb Inventor, W3C Webmaster, and Knight Commander, the Order of the British Empire, gave his blessing to the anti-piracy lock on web content.
Traditionally, WEB technology is open.
But those who market expensive content, software and media companies instead of open source prefer open purses to anything.
They have adopted copy protection systems based on proprietary technologies such as Adobe Flash and Wildvine that allow high value content to be released but can not be easily copied through web browsers.
Encrypted Media Extensions API - supported by companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. are opposed to the free software community, academic researchers, and the enemies of piracy mechanisms. The Encrypted Media Extensions API provides a template-based mechanism for viewing DRM-protected content in compatible web browsers.
W3C does not oblige anyone to use DRM. Rather, the EME API is the one that provides support to content providers who choose to deploy DRM through content decryption modules or CDMs.
Speaking on behalf of Berners-Lee in a note published in the W3C mailing list, Philippe Le Hégaret said:
"After reviewing the issues, the Director concluded that the EME specification should be transposed into W3C recommendations."
EMEs have first proposed 2012, and continue to incite disagreement among those who believe that Web technology should completely remove DRM.
"Today we mourn the Web, as the W3C has sold us all," said John Sullivan, executive director of the Free Software Foundation, in a publication. the manufacture.
In February, writer and activist Cory Doctorow, writing for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called EMEs “unjustified".
In the same month, Berners-Lee stated his support for technology, arguing that it is better to have a place for it on the table than to ignore the concerns of software and content companies and force them to implement their own DRM programs.
"If W3C didn't offer EME, then browser vendors would do it outside of W3C," he said "..." It's better for users to DRM through EME than in other ways. "
This is a view that the enemies of EMEs do not accept. There are those who see DRM as anathema, because no obvious hacking could make studio executives open the code for security, as they focus only on the "inbound" of the investment.
In a more realistic position, the Electronic Frontier Foundation last year suggest a way to mitigate the risk of not developing EME for computer security researchers due to legal threats based on DMCA circumvention provisions. The Cyber Defense Group has asked W3C to support a DRM policy similar to the existing W3C Non-Aggressive Patent Policy as a way to prevent EME's reluctance to be used for security.
W3C, which was unable to come to an agreement on how to deal with the disclosure of vulnerabilities, responded with less than that, offering only voluntary guidelines instead of demanding legislation.
Web: Time pressure
EME will eventually be published as a W3C proposal unless at least 5% of the 475 members of the W3C Advisory Board (the committee consists of companies, non-profit and educational organizations) file an objection within 14 days.
If an objection is filed, the committee members will have to vote on whether to accept or reject the technology.
WEB Under the mat
Naturally, in 2017 years, it would have been utopia if we believed that the WEB function was defined by committees and not by major technology companies or hidden government orders. Closed code on the WEB means, apart from covert surveillance, and a crazy dance of billions, and as you understand, there are many who claim it.
Companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are keen to offer a better user experience and of course they will not do so with altruistic aspirations.
Governments and secret services have for years been trying to control every piece of information and the WEB is a part of trafficking but also an arena for the dominance of the most powerful.
Of course, it is worth mentioning the surprise placement by Sir Berners-Lee, as well as the shift of the Web Templates Service, W3C where he chairs.
Perhaps the fact is that many people think that the future of the Internet cannot exist without the adoption and immediate use of closed source code….
But is that the case? And if it is because there are so many opposing voices from free movement agencies and many other activists?
Why is there someone who decides where and when can we be safe?
I personally hope that the voices seeking for profit are not heard, and that the romantic ones who believe in the open nature of the Internet prevail. I hope there are still some who cannot be bought out by companies waiting around the corner to provide us with a "better user experience."