Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Resigns From Web Consortium In Wake of EME DRM Standardization (eff.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cause-and-effect dept.

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."

12 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. The day the music died.... by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    W3C sells out, leaves its somewhat democratic origins, succumbs to the payola, jumps the shark. Carry on, EFF. Someone has to.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:The day the music died.... by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sent a very loud message, didn't it? I won't stand with various organizations based on purely ideological grounds, either. It makes the W3C much less effective. It's a good stance to take. Perhaps it will bear some meaning.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:The day the music died.... by sabri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this is not the same as when the corporate 'leaders' left trump's stupid panel thing, forcing it to dissolve itself. w3c isn't going anywhere.

      On the contrary. The w3c is making itself irrelevant by forcing issues. Their own charter states:

      Consensus is a core value of W3C

      Well, guess what. They just threw their own core value away.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    3. Re:The day the music died.... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point is that their voice doesn't count.

      If EFF cannot get its concerns reflected in the outcome of the debate, it in effect has no role in the debate other than to lend spurious credibility to the result.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:The day the music died.... by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and them bailing on the organization leaves the people with one less voice on it.

      There's no point in having a voice when that voice is just going to be ignored. In fact, it can be harmful in the big picture if your presence serves to legitimize the organization.

      Over the past few years the W3C has made its priority clear: it exists to further corporate goals. The EFF being part of that only serves to put a veneer over that that fact.

      I applaud the EFF for doing as they've done.

    5. Re:The day the music died.... by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many of us in the tech communities watch the W3C with both awe and respect, and yeah, sometimes shaking our heads over strange misdeeds, take the craziness behind HTML5 in general for an example.

      But they violated their own rules, and fed the demons. They could have resisted, and let both the steep privacy issues and the banal big-data-suck get a needed knee-cap. They didn't. Now we know: even the W3C has their price.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  2. respect is earned, not demanded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Sorry there bubs. Any respect I had for the "value of the W3C community and process in arriving at blah fucking blah" has now gone out the window.

    Respect is earned, not demanded. This is going to be the undoing of the open internet, more than any other single thing in its history.

  3. This was certainly going to be the outcome by edtice1559 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    DRM schemes aren't going away and having standards around them seems like the best path forward. Without DRM, you can't have content rental systems. It's been said many times that information wants to be free, but the content creators need to eat and the studio executives need to fuel a lavish lifestyle. Without some form of DRM you wouldn't be able to have subscription services like HBO Go or Amazon Prime. It's a fair criticism that when you "purchase" a movie or TV show using Amazon Prime or Apple TV or similar that it's really a long-term rental. There was a time when a DRM-free purchase seemed like a great idea. But that was when we wanted to do things like download an entire movie and play on various devices. Now everything is streaming and you don't even notice the DRM. New standards will make it even less intrusive. Yes part of Stallman's "Right to Read" is coming true in that you can't lend your DRM purchases very well and sharing your password isn't a great idea. But also the prices have come down so much that there's no *need* for this. Everybody can have their own access for a very affordable price so the doom and gloom predictions are not materializing. I'm glad EFF resigned because I'd like to see them focus their attention on more important issues.

    1. Re:This was certainly going to be the outcome by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DRM schemes aren't going away and having standards around them seems like the best path forward.

      No. Having them byzantine and hard to use is a much, much better option. Fragmentation will keep them from being used as much.
      The only reason to favor this is if you want DRM.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Re:The time has come. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yea they lost their creditability by adding a feature that got voted in by a majority. You can't win all the time you need to get over it.

    It was voted in by member with a financial incentive to do so. That specifically is called a conflict of interest.

    we need to see why without the layers on cynicism DRM was voted in. Because it seems to help solve some problems that they needed to have solved.

    Actually, I know what problem it solves, it solves the "I'm contractually required to use DRM" problem that various members have with Hollywood studios. There literally is no other problem that it solves, I've read the specification.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Re:You can't win all the time. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DRM isn't an extreme feature,

    Strongly disagree, I almost stopped reading your comment at this point.

    Now other than getting up an leaving in a huff because they didn't get their way, they should be asking themselves, what other alternatives to DRM is there that can address the concerns of the 58% who approved of it.

    There is no alternative, because of how extreme and perverse DRM is. It's like looking for a compromise between a hippie and an ISIS terrorist. Nothing would come remotely close to satisfying both at the same time.

    Since the EFF had no say in a forum that supposedly only makes consensus-based decisions, what's the point of them staying in the W3C other than to have their membership misconstrued as consent?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  6. Devil's advocate by FeelGood314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was not a fight about whether DRM was good or bad, it wasn't about whether it should be used or not either - It already exists and is being used. It wasn't even a debate about whether it should be standardized, you really can't stop a group of people from agreeing to agree on how to do things. The only possible debate was whether the DRM standard would be part of W3C.

    Now the W3C could decided they hate DRM and not put it in their standard but then the web browsers are going to standardize it on their own outside of the W3C. This definitely weakens the W3C but it also goes against what W3C stands for. They are supposed to be the place for people to put web standards together. Just because the EFF doesn't agree with DRM, shouldn't allow them to stop the web browser makers from agreeing to the standard and making it a W3C standard.