That's the wrong question. W3C itself is relatively tiny, and has fairly ordinary (albeit well tuned) software/server infrastructure. Reproducing the legal framework would be more of a pain, but even that could probably be done. But W3C is mostly its member companies, and the're not switching, since the majority of them, including all browsers, were in favor of this. So if all existing specifications continue to reside on W3C's web site, and all new specifications continue to be produced (by member companies) in the same place, there's not meaningful forking possible.
If members are disgruntled, you can fork. That's happened before when there was disagreement about what to do with HTML, and it led to the creation of the WHATWG.
By and large, members this time are supportive. Not all, mind you, but all the large players.
The only party with the capability of "forking" Internet standards as we know them is Google. Because as the majority share of web browser traffic an extremely dominant percentage of web server traffic, Google can define the Internet as it wishes, and everyone else has to follow along or fall behind. This is the same with EME. Standards organizations stay relevant by accepting what Google gives them, they would simply be left behind if they didn't.
(For those who don't know, Widevine, the DRM scheme that is currently best known as compatible with EME, and which taints my Firefox browser so I can watch movies, is owned by Google.) http://www.widevine.com
(Sidebar to the sidebar: Widevine has the least Googley website you've ever seen. Stock photos of a physical padlock, HTML code entirely based on table tags for layout. It's so strange.)
I doubt it. Specifically, I doubt they will, or even want to. That's not really what they do, they are mostly advocates.
As advocates,I'm sad to see them do this. I will still donate to them, but it's unfortunate to see them quit. This means they will no longer have a seat at the table for future discussions.
They still do enough good to be worth donating to, but this was not a very good choice on their part.
"We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM."
which is an active protection of the user against malware.
You should look at how Mozilla implemented EME then. The CDM is sandboxed, in a much stricter sandbox than the rest of the browser even. So no, the CDM potentially being dangerous (for privacy or security) isn't actually that much of an issue.
Of course, someone might at some point claim that the privacy features harm the copyrights protection, at which point choices will have to be made.
History provide ample evidence that Mozilla will make the choice their users ask for (which is, by the way, not necessarily the choice some users will voice the most loudly).
To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but "people should just not watch DRMed video" is not an actual answer to the problem at hand.
that's the whole point: if your product is so amazing that your users will do that, then it's great! but those of us who are NOT your customers will be able to exist without the attack surface on our machine.
So you claim that Firefox (and other browsers) should implement malware or a malware interface into their browser so that users don't have a reason to download and install some other malware?
> To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is.
False dichotomy.
Instead of exposing a small percentage of users to large attack vector (native app), you are exposing a very large percentage of users (close to 100%) with a lower attach vector. THe potential for damage is much, much higher, since it would affect about everyone using the Internet with major browsers.
For all the DRM Netflix has pushed down our throats, they still serve many titles (mainly movies and not their own productions) in piss-poor quality with those browsers whose users' freedom they have crippled. And I do mean absolutely awful quality as some titles clock in at less than 1000 kbps which isn't even nowhere near DVD quality.
What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place. Firefox staying relevant in the browser market is a better strategy in the long run than a hard line stance against DRM.
I can't tell if this is satire. Does anyone seriously believe that surrendering the war when you've lost one battle is an intelligent strategy? Mozilla contributes a whole lot to OSS, including providing a browser that can be trivially used without any black-box DRM-enforcement code hitting your system.
I didn't mean to suggest I categorically disagreed with the decision, in this case. I simply note that you can't extend that logic indefinitely, or you lose the thing you're fighting for.
> What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place.
This was rather the point of Fall of Men ("Zeitpunkt des Sündenfalls") in Firefox' history to me. It was also the point in time where I stopped donating to them.
Mozilla opposed EME very strongly. But when it was clear that Google, Microsoft and Apple all supported it and were shipping it, Mozilla was forced to ship it as well (with a flag that makes it easy to disable for users that want to).
Mozilla is playing a double game of pretending to be on the users side while completely being in Google's pocket. For Google this ensures they cannot be accused of being a monopoly.
And those working for Google attempting to divert attention to Hollywood are symptomatic of the reality distortion field and self deception of SV. Google is a spyware company engaged in mass surveillance and creepily following everyone on the planet for profit. There are no redeeming values here. SV is basically a gold rush with greed and money being the primary driver glossed over with dollops of pretension.
The world just has to step up to take control and diminish the ideology that drives SV. So far be it open source, web services, standards or regulations there is no contribution. Why are there no alternatives to Firefox, Google, Facebook and others? You can't be completely dependent on these companies and then claim victimhood.
That deal may be over but Mozilla still gets money from Google for search. Why is user advocacy so low key and half hearted, this being just one of them. What do they have to lose?
They have consistently thrown in the towel while diluting the very things that users would choose them over Chrome for.
There are many ways to exert influence in this world. Mozilla is in SV and is very much part of the culture and ecosystem. We need genuine alternatives and activism against entrenched interests.
This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.
Firefox opposed it very strongly, and only gave in and implemented it when it was clear that all other browsers were behind it - at that point the battle was already lost.
When the EFF says
> The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they’ll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.
It is safe to assume the companies the EFF refers to are Google and Microsoft.
Mozilla's users outvoted Mozilla staff, and Mozilla staff gracefully conceded that users are best served when they have the OPTION to consume DRM-controlled content or free content.
And they implemented it as strictly opt in (they ask before installing it), and fully user controlled:
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM on demand, with user permission, to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM. The CDM runs in a separate container called a sandbox and you will be notified when a CDM is in use. You can also disable a CDM and opt out of future updates by following the steps below. Once you disable a CDM, however, sites using this type of DRM may not operate properly."
So what was their option? Refusing to implement DRM (as opt-in) would mean that the ignorant user wouldn't be able to see Youtube videos anymore. The result would be that these users would move over to Chrome, Safari or Edge. There was no alternative.
>This was absolutely NOT wanted by Firefox.
They were the only browser to represent the users in this fight.
Don't put Mozilla in the same group as those other traitors.
But they ended up including DRM in their browser. So they're traitors and hypocrites, right?
You can still get the EME-free browser. They released both because ultimately, giving those who care a choice is easier than surviving once you alienate the legions of those who demand it for Netflix or the like.
The W3C is not the web. Look no further than the good work the WHATWG did to move the web forward while the W3C & Microsoft were holding the web back in the early 2000's.
> Look no further than the good work the WHATWG did
And who was WHATWG? Oh right, exactly the same companies that now voted for DRM as W3C standard. And why could they do WHATWG? Because they are the vendors of the majority browsers.
The W3C has pretty much zero power to prescribe what happens on the web.
Look at the history of their standards, and the direction that the web has actually gone.
The power for where the web goes is in the hands of web developers and browser developers. The W3C documents some things, but they are not a major player.
Actually, no. The Web is more an API for browsers at this point than anything. The W3C is, well, secondary, if browser manufacturers get behind another body - it'll happen.
I applaud you and anyone else who does this but I fear too many people sit on the other side of caring more about having Neflix now than maintaining the open internet. I know I won't be able to persuade my partner that we shouldn't watch Netflix anymore because of an issue she doesn't care about.
I'm willing to bet there are quite a few zeroes between the decimal point and the other digits of the percentage of people who will actually practice what you're preaching here.
If you want a text-only web, with no major content producers on it, you already have that. Just disable your browser's multimedia plugins. Or use Lynx, or some other browser of the 90s. The open parts of the web will still work.
Anyways, Netflix, Google, Apple, and Microsoft (probably - they aren't making their votes public) support this, so this is a great time to cancel your subscriptions and stop using their products.
> If you want a text-only web, with no major content producers on it, you already have that.
And that (the web as it is) is exactly what I want. And I want that the media companies who cannot accept that the web is free of DRM to stay away from it.
I will gladly take DRMed netflix over ad-ridden crap that "free" web gives us.
It seams that people are using "walled garden", "free/not free", "user hostile" without giving any thought.
It sure cannot be user hostile when there are no users, can it?
That's not your decision to make. They own their sites and content. You are, of course, free to ignore it. If you don't like a site, use the back button.
You can complain, of course. What you can't do is control others. That's something the web is good at working around.
"Mainline web: 0-rated DRMed Netflix if you pay ever-more exorbitant prices for our increasingly tiered package deals that make you try and remember the joy of 'cutting the cord'"
"Alternative web: Some competition without DRM, zero-rating, or other nonneutrality bullshit"
You go ahead and stick with your Netflix, buddy, and best of luck to ya.
American ISPs and legal precedent are all of course bought up by the interests building the former, but luckily I'm not tied down here.
Your assertion that standardizing DRM forces everyone to use it makes about as much sense as the assertion that teaching teenagers about condoms will make them all have sex.