[jasonkester]

There must be people who find this style of writing persuasive, but for me it has the opposite effect.

The tone is so aggressive and slanderous that even though I should nominally be on the side of the author, I find myself thinking "surely there is another side to this story" and come away with the feeling that I should step back and consider that maybe the other side is in fact in the right.

It's like reading angry anti-nuclear activists and (either side of) the climate change debate. Whoever wrote that angry irrational rant is surely not somebody I want to be on the same side of any issue with. Maybe I'll check out the other opinion to see if they have anybody sensible to articulate it.

[afarrell]

Agreed, and I've just realized the reason why : 1) The portmanteaus are just annoying to read, giving me a negative feeling off the bat and I start searching for flaws to justify it.

2) The portmanteaus are in-jokes for the people who already agree with the author. This makes me think that the author is so focused on their own social bubble that they haven't seriously wrestled with a well-written argument by the other side. If that is the case, then I can't trust the author to not have massively overlooked some important counter argument, so I have to go look for it myself.

3) The same as above, but also: life involves judgement calls and intuitive evaluations of situations. Sometimes, you see interpret another person's words in a way that is wildly detached from what they said. This makes you trust others interpretations less unless you can either see the primary sources yourself, or see them wrestling seriously with the other side's argument.

It would be nice if we judged all arguments just on their facts, but time is limited and so we have to make judgements like these.

[coldpie]

I think one of us is confused. I don't see any portmanteaus in the linked article: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/web_drm_standard_next...

[AtticusRex]

I wrote this statement and want to respond to your criticism.

Firstly, I think you make a very good point. I experience a similar feeling when I read things that appear one-sided, and I try in my writing to communicate the fact that both sides of the issue have been considered, even if I think one is completely absurd. I'll take your criticism into account with future writing about EME.

FWIW, here's the other side of the argument as I understand it:

"DRM is already happening on the Web, so we might as well do it at the W3C, with the vague hope that we will win some kind of concession from the DRM companies. Also, maybe if we don't, they will take their content off the Web and into some other system (subtext -- we care more about Netflix being on the Web as defined by W3C than we do about the Web as defined by W3C being free and open.

[gsnedders]

I think the other side of the argument is primarily the following:

a) The Membership of the W3C have decided they want to work on DRM.

b) Like most industry consortiums, the W3C is ultimately beholden to its (industrial) Membership. (And it's not clear they can refuse an organisation from joining as a Member without opening themselves up to allegations of being a cartel and the legal complications that would involve.)

A lot of this comes down to the relationship between the W3C and its Member organisations, and whether the W3C can refuse to work on something its Members want to.

There's also some of what you alluded to, which I will call c) A number of Member organisations have made it clear that they will work on this in some public forum regardless of what that forum is.

Now, from a purely pragmatic point-of-view, what is gained by the W3C refusing to work on it? Apple, Google, and Microsoft will still ship DRM modules; the web will still start relying on DRM modules existing within browsers. The outcome is entirely unchanged, as ultimately because of c we've ended up with an interoperable API from JS one can use to deal with DRM modules.

Refusing the venue is purely making a political point, it doesn't change the outcome. Now maybe that political point is a goal in and of itself, but given most of the arguments people make against DRM I'd suggest the goal here isn't a political point but rather reduction of reliance of DRM on the web.

By refusing to work on it, you upset the Membership (because you're going against them), jeopardising your own future (because a industrial consortium is nothing without Members), and not changing the outcome.

[jgay]

The W3C is not like most other industry consortium and it is not beholden to its industrial membership.

[gsnedders]

How is it not? Its very existence relies upon its membership continuing to choose to pay membership fees, after all.

[mikegerwitz]

This is a passionate issue, written from the perspective of a fierce activist. I participated in the march against DRM in March, and it's difficult to describe the powerful emotion bursting from the protesters, as well as Harry Halpin when he pledged his resignation should it pass.

But your perspective is important.

I encourage you to write to [e-mail]; I know personally that Zak and others will value your input.

[mstade]

I agree, and from the (admittedly few) opinions I've read on the topic it seems both sides at a lower level (i.e. mailing list as opposed to blogs) have quite well articulated and reasoned contents. From reading those, I feel I have a better understanding of both sides. I also feel there's little consensus, yet a choice was made anyway. The (grossly simplified) argument being that vendors implement DRM anyway so may as well have at least some spec for it.

I personally don't agree with this, and get the feeling that there's a very heavy corporate hand in place threatening to move consumers (e.g. Netflix saying people just want to watch video damnit) away from the open web by using alternative technologies. We're better off with EME than Flash and Silverlight, essentially.

I'm obviously grossly over simplifying things, but what I'm trying to say is that I think you're right, it's not as black/white as the parent article tries to make it. I'm not trying to pretend I'm some sort of expert on this topic – far from it – and certainly recommend anyone interested in this to spend some time and actually read the reasoning of both sides.

[microcolonel]

The sad-hilarious thing is that I would pay Netflix exactly as much money if the content weren't DRM'd, in fact I might pay more since they currently limit to 720p on Widevine (which is disappointing for my 1440p displays).

The reason I'd still pay Netflix, is that I can already pirate all of the shows they license. I pay for their reliable adaptive-rate streaming technology, the content I can get from almost anyone. In trade for the convenience, I lose quality because the widevine streams only go up to 720p. Even sadder, I could torrent good quality screencaps of the 1080p Netflix streams if I wanted to.

The publishers are just being ridiculous, so the DRM is enabled for everything. Though I wish they would put their money where their mouth is and disable the DRM for Netflix originals.