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."
Tim Berners-Lee has lost his way. I remember when he came to Wellington NZ and he was doing public talks about appstores and how people were using apps more than the web. He sounded scared that they would make the web irrelevant. If I were to guess why he kept supporting DRM it was because of this.
Obviously over the years W3C has drifted between relevance, with HTML5 being done in the WhatWG and then copypasted to the W3C for no good reason (except for standards wonks trying to push specs to the ISO etc).
So from my perspective it's the W3C continuing irrelevance, and it's the browsers' choice that matters more. Firefox have a fairly good EME approach that at least sandboxes the DRM, but who knows how long they'll hold out with that approach if a major site adopts more intrusive DRM.
I suspect that appstores will fade in relevance sure to PWAs more than the web adopting DRM.
Now for the first time we have tacit acceptance of DRM and patents in W3C standards. Sure EME is just an API but it only exists to facilitate DRM all of which is patent encumbered, so practically it's no different in terms of limiting user rights and what browsers can do, and accessibility. Now to make a browser we need to accept Hollywoods terms. Before we had pressure that they would get more eyeballs in the web without DRM but no longer. Wait to see how youtube reacts... (No I don't mean the fine Bros)
Without a standards organization that can actually make portable standards (see lack of CDM documentation), it's time that we must construct a new standards body that isn't afraid to do what it claims it will do rather than what they must in order to appease their corporate masters.
The W3C has lost it's credibility. The time has come to form a new standards body for the web.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
looking forward to browsers advertising non compliance.
[Jeff Jaffe, CEO of W3C] speaking for the W3C:
The the people in the W3C are not in any kind of a "best light" when the organization is obviously and outrageously fluffing corporate behemoths over the needs of everyone else, though.
The degree of pro-corporate spin in Jaffe's remarks is appalling.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The RIAA/MPAA and other rights organizations infect a lot of good work. They're one of the reasons that TOR exists. Were they smarter, none of this would be necessary.... but feeding the draconian legal system in the USA is the usury we must apparently pay.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
And it doesn't even affect the Web all that much.
EME lets browsers play back DRM'ed video and audio. That's all.
You miss understand, this is the npapi all over again. The buggy flash plugins that infect pc's. The java pugin that formats your hard drive. My personal opinion, for as useless as long term DRM is, that just having DRM isn't a problem for the web. The problem is custom plugins that sit outside chrome/IE/firefox's walled garden that do whatever the fuck. Now its in the standard that says "open season". And if you think that its "just for DRM video", I already see them trying to design some kind of os system API.
Works like that for US radio stations. Since forever US radio stations do not pay a penny in royalties. Contrary, many got paid to play specific songs more frequently. The "payola" approach was eventually deemed illegal. So how come a megacorp radio station chain can get music for free to run a for profit business but we have to get nickled and dimed for it? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that nobody should pay royalties, but it is either everyone or nobody. What needs to come with that is a reform in copyright and significantly more transparency in the decision making and money flows of BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. It is well known that most of the money in royalties does not even end up with the artists or right holders, but that many along the way grab greedily without delivering any value whatsoever.