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. 
HTML markup, CSS, and JavaScript can be viewed, though they are not easy to understand because of minimization or minification (we use it in SecNews), mixed and reused. The open nature of his web has also allowed his huge growth.
The difficulties
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.
However, this approach is quite desirable in terms of user experience and continued compatibility.
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 sold us all out," lamented John Sullivan, executive director of the Free Software Foundation (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. "
Αυτή είναι μια άποψη που οι εχθροί των EME δεν παραδέχονται. Υπάρχουν αυτοί που βλέπουν τα DRM σαν ανάθεμα, γιατί κανένα προφανές hacking δεν θα μπορούσε να κάνει τα στελέχη στούντιο ανοίξουν τον κώδικα για την better safety, αφού επικεντρώνονται μόνο στα “εισερχόμενα” των επενδύσεων.
In a more realistic position, the Electronic Frontier Foundation last year suggest a way to mitigate the risk of not developing EMEs for security researchers computers, due to legal threats based on DMCA circumvention provisions. The cyber rights advocacy group has asked the W3C to support a policy on DRM, similar to the W3C's existing patent non-aggression policy, as a means of preventing the reluctance of EMEs 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
Of course, in 2017 it would be utopia if we believed that the mode of the WEB is defined by committees, not by big tech companies or hidden government mandates. Closed source on the WEB means in addition to covert surveillance, and a crazy dance of billions, and as you understand, there are many who claim them.
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 that seek profit will not be heard, and that the romantics who believe in its open nature will prevail Internet. I hope there are still some that can't be bought by companies waiting around the corner to give us a "better user experience."
