Visit ArabTopics.com

With the World Wide Web Consortium captured by the copyright industry, who will step up to lead web development next?

spiderweb-dewdrops-1280x720-istockphoto

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which used to develop standards for the Web, has been captured by the copyright industry. In a doubly controversial vote, the W3C decided that media companies and not the user should be in control, ending their longstanding commitment to openness and the Internet’s core values. The open question is what new body web developers will choose to follow for future generations of standards.

This week, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) formally adopted Digital Restriction Measures (DRM) as part of the Web, thereby ending a policy of “the user is in control of their experience” and replacing it with “the copyright industry is in control”. The standard in question is called EME — Encrypted Media Extensions — and was pushed by all the pre-internet giants with vested pre-internet interests and Netflix.

Why is this bad? For all the reasons.

The W3C is — was — the body that defined standards for the World Wide Web, which browser developers implemented in turn into web browsers like Firefox, Chromium, Opera, and Safari. Having a third party publish the standards meant that no one browser team is in charge of standards development at the same time as they are making a browser, thereby encouraging interoperability between different browsers.

Now, having Digital Restriction Measures (DRM) as part of the Web means a number of very bad things, both principal, technical, and legal. First and foremost, on the principle level, the control of the experience has always been with the user. You don’t like a particular website’s color scheme? Turn it off. You don’t like ads? Turn them off. You’re blind? Have the page read out loud to you instead of displayed. The page scripts are annoying? Disable their scripts. The notion that the information is served, complete with a suggested layout, but with yourself as final arbiter as to how the website is allowed to show on your screen, has always been front row center to the development of the Web. Until this week, that is.

It’s important to realize that this encryption is not to the benefit of the user, like https is, but to the benefit of the copyright industry. In Cory Doctorow’s words, when somebody gives you a locked piece of data without the key, that lock is never there for your benefit.

From a technical perspective, this means that attacks delivered over the web — which are most of them today — can now be delivered in a standardized encrypted format, which means virus and malware checkers can’t intercept and prevent infection the way they can today.

From a legal perspective, it’s even worse, because it’s now illegal to research and prevent such attacks that are delivered over a channel protected by Digital Restriction Measures (DRM) in some of the biggest economies, like the United States and Europe. All other related research that seeks to circumvent the copyright industry’s control to the benefit of the user is also illegal, like providing accessibility to blind people (no, the standards don’t require it).

So why all this fuss just for a delivery channel of movies, in practice, which everybody gets from their favorite “unofficial sources” anyway?

Because there’s nothing limiting this delivery channel to just a movie. In theory, the entire web experience could be encrypted using new layers of technology. Yes, that includes mandatory advertising. Mandatory. Advertising. Yes, on your screen. The principal shift here, to put the media companies in control instead of the user, is the most important one with far-reaching ramifications.

When the RIAA calls a decision “a victory for common sense”, you know you’ve got it exactly wrong, W3C. — John Sullivan, FSF

This happened in a doubly controversial vote. Doubly because first, up until today, standards were never decided by vote, but by consensus, a threshold quite far above simple majority; and second, the vote passed by a mere 58%.

To quote John Sullivan, director of the Free Software Foundation, who tweeted at the W3C: “When the RIAA calls a decision ‘a victory for common sense’, you know you’ve got it exactly wrong, W3C.”

This is a textbook example of Regulatory Capture, this which just happened. The W3C was captured by the copyright industry.

Regulatory Capture is a term describing a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called “captured agencies”. (Quote from Wikipedia.)

Seeing this regulatory capture firsthand, taking place against its formal objections, the Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately resigned from the World Wide Web Consortium.

The concept of regulatory capture is not an easy nut to crack. During the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers complained about this problem, which they called factions, and discussed how they could prevent the capture of regulatory bodies by those who would be regulated by it. In the end, it was one of the problems the Founding Fathers didn’t solve in creating the United States of America, and so it remains unsolved.

Except maybe not in this case, because the W3C has no formal authority. Its recommendations are — were — followed only based on trust in having done the right thing up until this week. It was a leader in the truest sense; somebody who others voluntarily chose to take advice from. The W3C was a standards body, but nobody is coerced into following their standards.

Therefore, the field is now open for a new publisher of web standards, one that doesn’t bend the knee to the copyright industry, and more importantly, a standards body that continues to put the user in control of their own computer and experience.

For once the developers see where the path goes when you put the copyright industry in charge of the experience, they will balk at that and do something else.

Failing that, there’s the next level of safety valve, the users themselves, which are likely to reject such an experience and lack of control altogether — just remember how Adblock started out as a niche plugin for Firefox, then gradually spread to a plugin for all browsers, and are now working its way into the mainline browser distributions. When many enough users say that they’ve had enough of something, that also counts for something.

In any case, the field is now open for somebody to step up to the plate and take charge of the future of web standards, with users front row center where they belong. The EFF themselves, perhaps?

(This is a post from Falkvinge on Liberty, obtained via RSS at this feed.)

Source: 
Rick Falkvinge

Dear friends of this aggregator

  • Yes, I intentionally removed Newsbud from the aggregator on Mar 22.
  • Newsbud did not block the aggregator, although their editor blocked me on twitter after a comment I made to her
  • As far as I know, the only site that blocks this aggregator is Global Research. I have no idea why!!
  • Please stop recommending Newsbud and Global Research to be added to the aggregator.

Support this site

News Sources

Source Items
Grayzone Project 11
Pass Blue 55
Dilyana Gaytandzhieva 14
John Pilger 409
The Real News 367
Scrutinised Minds 27
Need To Know News 1678
FEE 3227
Marine Le Pen 230
Francois Asselineau 25
Opassande 53
HAX on 5July 220
Henrik Alexandersson 540
Mohamed Omar 241
Professors Blog 10
Arg Blatte Talar 37
Angry Foreigner 17
Fritte Fritzson 11
Teologiska rummet 32
Filosofiska rummet 70
Vetenskapsradion Historia 116
Snedtänkt (Kalle Lind) 177
Les Crises 1869
Richard Falk 115
Ian Sinclair 79
SpinWatch 50
Counter Currents 6295
Kafila 355
Gail Malone 33
Transnational Foundation 221
Rick Falkvinge 93
The Duran 6541
Vanessa Beeley 93
Nina Kouprianova 9
MintPress 4803
Paul Craig Roberts 1149
News Junkie Post 44
Nomi Prins 24
Kurt Nimmo 191
Strategic Culture 3453
Sir Ken Robinson 16
Stephan Kinsella 66
Liberty Blitzkrieg 794
Sami Bedouin 61
Consortium News 2149
21 Century Wire 2905
Burning Blogger 279
Stephen Gowans 67
David D. Friedman 128
Anarchist Standard 16
The BRICS Post 1464
Tom Dispatch 409
Levant Report 17
The Saker 3423
The Barnes Review 470
John Friend 364
Psyche Truth 146
Jonathan Cook 135
New Eastern Outlook 3101
School Sucks Project 1735
Giza Death Star 1562
Andrew Gavin Marshall 15
Red Ice Radio 567
GMWatch 1799
Robert Faurisson 148
Espionage History Archive 34
Jay's Analysis 739
Le 4ème singe 87
Jacob Cohen 197
Agora Vox 10724
Cercle Des Volontaires 417
Panamza 1637
Fairewinds 103
Project Censored 720
Spy Culture 366
Conspiracy Archive 66
Crystal Clark 11
Timothy Kelly 488
PINAC 1482
The Conscious Resistance 546
Independent Science News 66
The Anti Media 5565
Positive News 820
Brandon Martinez 30
Steven Chovanec 61
Lionel 259
The Mind renewed 210
Natural Society 2461
Yanis Varoufakis 813
Tragedy & Hope 122
Dr. Tim Ball 63
Web of Debt 125
Porkins Policy Review 347
Conspiracy Watch 174
Eva Bartlett 563
Libyan War Truth 280
DeadLine Live 1905
Kevin Ryan 61
BSNEWS 1964
Aaron Franz 186
Traces of Reality 166
Revelations Radio News 121
Dr. Bruce Levine 111
Peter B Collins 1334
Faux Capitalism 205
Dissident Voice 9539
Climate Audit 220
Donna Laframboise 355
Judith Curry 1051
Geneva Business Insider 40
Media Monarchy 1991
Syria Report 70
Human Rights Investigation 90
Intifada (Voice of Palestine) 1685
Down With Tyranny 10102
Laura Wells Solutions 27
Video Rebel's Blog 411
Revisionist Review 485
Aletho News 17818
ضد العولمة 27
Penny for your thoughts 2653
Northerntruthseeker 2039
كساريات 37
Color Revolutions and Geopolitics 27
Stop Nato 4615
AntiWar.com Blog 2687
AntiWar.com Original Content 6105
Corbett Report 2085
Stop Imperialism 491
Land Destroyer 1105
Webster Tarpley Website 938

Compiled Feeds

Public Lists

Title Visibility
Funny Public