3 ms·

Can somebody explain what exactly is happening here? What were the pros/cons of the move? e.g., it is possible that browsers are in a tight spot: If they fail t

Can somebody explain what exactly is happening here? What were the pros/cons of the move? e.g., it is possible that browsers are in a tight spot: If they fail to provide certain functionality, then content providers just move to native apps. Was that the tradeoff here?

frivoal 9y ago
W3C decided to publish a final version of the EME specification. W3C is the place where member companies come to write and negotiate the specification for how many web technologies should work. EME is an API for talking to a audio/video DRM module. EME (and the corresponding DRM modules) have been shipping in all browsers for years. A large minority of W3C members, led by EFF, were trying to tie the publication of this specification with a legal contract (called a covenant) between members preventing them to sue people (under laws like the DMCA) if they did nothing more than break the DRM. This would leave copyright infringers liable to law suits, but not security researchers, developers of accessibility add-ons, and so on. This proposal gather a large minority, but a minority nonetheless. The W3C process doesn't let the majority win automatically. Normally, it goes by consensus, and keeps negotiations going until all find something they can agree on. If that fails to happen, and someone objects to the decision being proposed, the director of the W3C (who is incidentally the person who invented the web), gets to call the shot. If a majority of members thinks he called the shot wrong, he can be overturned in appeal. This decision to publish the final version of the EME specification without a covenant was appealed, and the appeal failed.