Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] [wg/media] Media Working Group Charter (Issue #1082)

jyasskin left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1082)

Thank you for sending this to us. We don't have any concerns about the charter update, but given the ideas about extending EME, we wanted to give a sense of how the TAG will think about any such extensions.

We see EME as a bargain struck between the web's users and content owners, with web browsers negotiating on their users' behalf. The content of this bargain is still [controversial](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web), even 8 years later. We're not taking a position on whether that bargain was justified at the time, but we do think that the web's users deserve their representatives to keep negotiating hard for better bargains in the future. We shouldn't just give away new ways to use EME without ensuring that end users are getting something valuable in return. We urge you to get broad agreement with browser vendors before putting this sort of work on a charter.

When considering new capabilities, there should be some clear body of content that would stay off the web without that capability, and that content should be valuable enough to offset the downsides of EME. If the content itself would likely just be offered in a way that's less convenient for its owners, those owners could instead offer something else of value to the web's users.

Thanks again for continuing to improve media on the web.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1082#issuecomment-2884345629
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1082/2884345629@github.com>