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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
You might think you're being a "pragmatist", but actually you're just a liberal cock sucker.
"This guy won't stop waving his cock in my face, so I may as well suck it" - You.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
"We can only see all topics as black and white choices because we're dumb Americans raised on a fucked-up political system." - Both of you.
#DeleteFacebook