Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Feb 2014 22:20 UTC
Internet & Networking

Speaking with Wired editor David Rowan at an event launching the magazine's March issue, Tim Berners-Lee said that although part of this is about keeping an eye on for-profit internet monopolies such as search engines and social networks, the greatest danger is the emergence of a balkanised web.

"I want a web that's open, works internationally, works as well as possible and is not nation-based," Berners-Lee told the audience, which included Martha Lane Fox, Jake Davis (AKA Topiary) and Lily Cole. He suggested one example to the contrary: "What I don't want is a web where the Brazilian government has every social network's data stored on servers on Brazilian soil. That would make it so difficult to set one up."

A government never gives up a power it already has. The control it currently has over the web will not be relinquished.

Thread beginning with comment 582551
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by anda_skoa on Fri 7th Feb 2014 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

[qThere are two choices either we have a standard for DRM or there will be some bullshit plugin system we will have to deal with.

The problem is that they are currently going for a third option.
The encrypted media extension (EME) does neither specify a standard DRM system, nor any way to register or query for installed DRM systems.

A lot of opposition would falter if there were indeed a move toward DRM standardisation.
In fact quite a few of the discussion participants currently opposed to EME have explicitly asked for requirements a standard DRM system would have to fullfill, only to be told that either there are no such requirements or that they are secret.

I'd rather have the option of dealing with a standard and documented way, that is built into the browser than the alternative.

Unfortunately this is not what you will get. Nobody is working even in the general direction of that goal.

The alternative is having to deal with multitude of crappy very similar but slightly different implementations of essentially the same thing, in something like flash.

Unfortunately this is what you will get, just less platform coverage than Flash.

I do care about clients, customers, consumers and other developers. That is why I support a sensible compromise, rather some ridiculous moral crusade over something that I don't think is that important.

A very sensible point of view. Wouldn't it be great if at least a single one of the EME proponents would have the same one?

I am always puzzled how the group managed to make even informed people believe that there was going to be a standardized or unified solution.
Maybe so many wish this to be true that they are believing it inspite of all the evidence countering it?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Fri 7th Feb 2014 18:00 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:

Thanks for explaining why there is the opposition against it.

I am going to have to read more about it, since most of the blogs I have read were complaining about the DRM angle (which I don't care about).

Reply Parent Score: 3