Covenant needs to bind the same W3C members who give up EME IPR via patent process, so it must be administered by W3C. Not optional on side.
As someone "in the discussions" are you saying there wasn't massive pushback from the likes of MPAA and Netflix?
-
-
I cannot speak from fact in 2016-17, but before they essentially did not show up. A few messages, maybe. However, as I someone who gets...
-
...anywhere near enough or pull something off on their own. This decision does not happen without browser vendors behind it, plain & simple.
-
Right. The browser vendors are representing the position of the content producers. It's the W3C's job to find acceptable compromises.
-
So the question is: what were the in-the-room-where-it-happens arguments against the EFF compromise proposal?
-
I would expect many companies to object to a legally binding document they don't perceive as vital to them. It's asking for exposure...
-
...in exchange for a public good they don't feel strongly about. That alone could almost derail it. Add browser vendors and it's dead.
-
This is a far too fatalistic point of view and removes the agency of the Director, excusing him for his behavior.
-
1: We'll never know if your game theory is right because we were too cowardly to try.
- 24 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Can you reveal what their arguments against the EFF compromise were?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.