The open Internet and consumer choice are both under attack. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) described the threat (links added):
"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), once the force for open standards that kept browsers from locking publishers to their proprietary capabilities, has changed its mission. Since 2013, the organization has provided a forum where today's dominant browser companies and the dominant entertainment companies can collaborate on a system to let our browsers control our behavior, rather than the other way.
This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them have a CDM, or this part of the "open" Web would not display in their new browser.
This is the opposite of every W3C standard to date: once, all you needed to do to render content sent by a server was follow the standard, not get permission. If browsers had needed permission to render a page at the launch of Mozilla, the publishers would have frozen out this new, pop-up-blocking upstart. Kiss Firefox goodbye, in other words.
The W3C didn't have to do this. No copyright law says that making a video gives you the right to tell people who legally watch it how they must configure their equipment. But because of the design of EME, copyright holders will be able to use the law to shut down any new browser that tries to render the video without their permission."
An EFF blog post explained the related threat from vague online language:
"A team of researchers from UC Berkeley and Case Western have published a study showing that customers think they are getting traditional ownership rights when they buy digital media online, even when a vendor’s site includes legal terms (often buried in click-wrap agreements) purporting to limit those rights.
In the study, customers purchased digital media from a fictional website with either a “Buy Now” button, a “License Now” button... Customers clicking “Buy Now” overwhelmingly believed for that they would “own” both digital and hard copy media, and have the right to keep it indefinitely and use it on a device of their choice. Little did they realize that their digital copy could be taken away or simply be discontinued when a vendor went out of business or stopped supporting the product... When the button was changed to read “License Now,” customers’ expectations did not significantly change (they were less likely to say they "owned" the product, but just as likely to believe they had the rights that come with ownership). When, however, customers were presented with a plainly-written summary of the rights that were and were not granted, this did cause a corresponding change in people’s expectations. The paper reinforces the truism that no one reads fine print online terms, even in a research study. If vendors really wanted customers to understand what’s in their terms, they could easily craft informative summaries as the researchers did."
So, when you visit a website with "Buy It Now" buttons or "Own it Now" ads, you now know what really matters is what the fine print states. Some Apple Music and iTunes customers are learning this the hard way. Subscribing to music online may be convenient, but the downside is loss of control over music files that can also affect files users do own.
Publishers have every right to protect their property from theft, and the old adage is true: the devil is in the details. Read the fine print. When publishers use digital rights management (DRM) to drive web browser standards and both the hardware and software consumers can buy, then the tail wagging the dog.
So, it's not only about saving the Firefox web browser. It's about ensuring competition; that publishers build content to open standards and any web browser can display content built to those standards. Read the entire EFF article. Standards are standards. They should be open to everyone; not driven by publisher's needs.
What are you thoughts or opinions about the new standard?