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.
Not accurate. EME was created and driven by Google, Microsoft and Netflix, as you can see here:
https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
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.