Slashdot Mirror
EFF Resigns From Web Consortium In Wake of EME DRM Standardization (eff.org)
New submitter Frobnicator writes: Four years ago, the W3C began standardizing Encrypted Media Extensions, or EME. Several organizations, including the EFF, have argued against DRM within web browsers. Earlier this year, after the W3C leadership officially recommended EME despite failing to reach consensus, the EFF filed the first-ever official appeal that the decision be formally polled for consensus. That appeal has been denied, and for the first time the W3C is endorsing a standard against the consensus of its members.
In response, the EFF published their resignation from the body: "The W3C is a body that ostensibly operates on consensus. Nevertheless, as the coalition in support of a DRM compromise grew and grew -- and the large corporate members continued to reject any meaningful compromise -- the W3C leadership persisted in treating EME as topic that could be decided by one side of the debate. [...] Today, the W3C bequeaths an legally unauditable attack-surface to browsers used by billions of people. Effective today, EFF is resigning from the W3C." Jeff Jaffe, CEO of W3C said: "I know from my conversations that many people are not satisfied with the result. EME proponents wanted a faster decision with less drama. EME critics want a protective covenant. And there is reason to respect those who want a better result. But my personal reflection is that we took the appropriate time to have a respectful debate about a complex set of issues and provide a result that will improve the web for its users. My main hope, though, is that whatever point-of-view people have on the EME covenant issue, that they recognize the value of the W3C community and process in arriving at a decision for an inherently contentious issue. We are in our best light when we are facilitating the debate on important issues that face the web."
In response, the EFF published their resignation from the body: "The W3C is a body that ostensibly operates on consensus. Nevertheless, as the coalition in support of a DRM compromise grew and grew -- and the large corporate members continued to reject any meaningful compromise -- the W3C leadership persisted in treating EME as topic that could be decided by one side of the debate. [...] Today, the W3C bequeaths an legally unauditable attack-surface to browsers used by billions of people. Effective today, EFF is resigning from the W3C." Jeff Jaffe, CEO of W3C said: "I know from my conversations that many people are not satisfied with the result. EME proponents wanted a faster decision with less drama. EME critics want a protective covenant. And there is reason to respect those who want a better result. But my personal reflection is that we took the appropriate time to have a respectful debate about a complex set of issues and provide a result that will improve the web for its users. My main hope, though, is that whatever point-of-view people have on the EME covenant issue, that they recognize the value of the W3C community and process in arriving at a decision for an inherently contentious issue. We are in our best light when we are facilitating the debate on important issues that face the web."
Why not hop over to: https://supporters.eff.org/don...
and sing up to donate a couple bucks a month to the EFF?
I did a short while ago to give them my support in light of https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... and am very happy that I did.
They're fighting the good fight.
This is going to be the undoing of the open internet, more than any other single thing in its history.
Well, let's not get too hyperbolic. This is a terrible thing, but it only affects the web, not the entire internet. There are bigger threats to the internet at large than this.
60% is a majority. It's hard to call it a consensus, especially when those opposed are VERY opposed. If you are disregarding the degree of that opposition- not looking at the general opinion, but the most common one- then it's a majority decision, not a consensus.
Pale Moon's (A Firefox fork) owner has said on many occasions that he will not include EME DRM in his browser.
The W3C was doing what it was designed to do—membership is only available to those who pay, and that means its membership is almost entirely businesses. Calling this selling out misses the point of how the W3C's structure virtually guarantees predictable pro-DRM business outcomes such as this. As DefectiveByDesign.org pointed out long ago, "Companies can impose DRM without the W3C; but we should make them do it on their own, so it is seen for what it is—a subversion of the Web's principles—rather than normalize it or give it endorsement.".
Digital Citizen
60% is a majority. It's hard to call it a consensus, especially when those opposed are VERY opposed. If you are disregarding the degree of that opposition- not looking at the general opinion, but the most common one- then it's a majority decision, not a consensus.
THe problem is whoever has enough money can buy their way hence have a voting right. This means Adobe, Apple, and Microsoft who all sell DRM creation tools and platform tie ins. This means newer codecs which means newer versions of Adobe products, more cpu/gpu power, and newer PC and Mac sales. Of course older phones and tablets won't support the newer codecs so this means users have to throw them away and repurchase again ... wahoo more money now for Google as well in addition to Apple!
Since now the purpose of W3C is to make money off of people for corporations what is the next step?
http://saveie6.com/
EFF has a pretty good open letter explaining their reasoning. In short: DRM is a fool's errand. It doesn't work. Everything on Netflix, Spotify, Amazon or anywhere else can be pirated despite the DRM. At no point as any DRM ever resolved any of these copyright infringement issues, and it never will, because the person you're trying to guard the secret from is the person who you're trying to reveal the secret to. It's a mathematical non-starter. Meanwhile, it does succeed in closing off devices, and criminalizing tinkerers who wish to repurpose the devices they've purchased for reasons which have nothing at all to do with piracy.
Firefox downloads the required DRM module from a third-party server when you first try to use DRM'ed content.
The modules are closed source, but available on the major platforms, including Linux. I watched a DRM'ed show on Netflix in Firefox on Linux last night.
Although the modules are closed source, in Firefox they are sandboxed. They cannot do much more than decode audio and video. They can't access arbitrary files or call arbitrary platform APIs with the user's privilege. They have access to persistent storage, but only mediated by the browser, so the browser can corral or wipe that data on user request. Thus, in Firefox at least, there is no more privacy risk than other forms of Web client storage.
In Firefox you can disable it via about:config or via the normal preferences by unchecking "Play DRM content" and disabling Google Widevine extension if installed.
In Chrome you can't disable it any more, all you can do is go to "C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\[Chrome Version]\WidevineCdm\" or wherever it is on your system and delete the files. You can create a dummy file with the name "WidevineCdm" and protect it from removal to stop future Chrome updates recreating it, but that might break the update installation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No, copyright was devised as a way to pay authors but force them to increase common culture years later after profits have been made.
Unfortunately, copyright has been corrupted decades ago and DRM makes the problem worst.
#DeleteFacebook