RE: EME FPWD CfC is closed

> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:01:32 +0100
> From: robin@w3.org
...
> Claiming that whoever you are speaking to is on the side of persecution, 
> against liberty, and against users is hardly a great way to make a point 
> in a technical discussion. It's a Freedom Fries argument, and I don't 
> think that anyone has ever seen much good come from these.

Integrating DRM into the HTML standard is a moral decision.  We are
all more than capable of solving the technical issues.  The question
is should we?

Sorry, I object to your insinuation that my moral choices are 'Freedom
Fries'.
 
> If you take a step back from the heat of the discussion, you'll notice 
> that no one involved actually really likes DRM. If you think that the 
> problem being tackled here is for or again DRM, then you're missing the 
> point.

The old 'it's hard on me too' argument, pathetic.  Grow up and take
some responsibility.

There are people on this list with a strong view in support of DRM.

I even sympathize with their position: not restricting user choice to
use DRM. Those arguing against integrating DRM into HTML need to
have a good answer to this concern.  My current position is to point
out the negatives for every one of integrating DRM, and to plead
with them to please just use a separate app. or hardware.
 
> The question that lies open before us is: given that DRM exists, should 
> it be implemented through proprietary plugins or should it be possible 
> to hook it somehow into the open web platform?

The other obvious alternative is to simply use an external native application.

This might be done relatively cleanly using Web Intents.
 
> It's a difficult question in part because even if you have the clear 
> goal that DRM should be eradicated — which you'll find is a view 
> actually shared by many people who support EME (in this form or another) 
> — there is no way to prove which path will most likely succeed in 
> attaining that goal.

The 'eradication' of DRM is not the issue at hand.  The issue is: should
it be part of HTML?
 
> It may be that DRM/proprietary will cause it to die as the OWP renders 
> proprietary platforms obsolete. But it may also be that by being the 
> only solutions to a feature that for better or for worse is requested by 
> large industry segments, proprietary platforms will be kept artificially 
> alive. It certainly seems to be the case that platforms that probably 
> should have died a while back (e.g. Flash, Silverlight) survive to this 
> day because they support DRM.

Most web users can live without DRM, and are better off to quarantine
it in dedicated hardware, or a separate native app. if they insist.
 
> Conversely, it may be that DRM/OWP will bring DRM's customers deeper 
> into the OWP's fold and culture, progressively assimilating their 
> current world view until DRM is digested into nothing. But it may be 
> that it keeps DRM alive longer than its time by rendering it available 
> on the dominant platform.
> 
> We can all make guesses, we can have intuitions, but if we're being 
> honest there's no telling which strategy is most likely to succeed in 
> either eliminating DRM or turning it into something that's user friendly.
> 
> If you see this as being the discussion we're having, the decision we're 
> faced with, then it should be clear that grandstanding talk of liberty 
> and persecution rings rather hollow.
> 
> We have to make a bet, and then we have to help it get where we'd like 
> it to go. That's where the more concrete issues surface, notably the 
> ability to support this feature in open source products. That's why I 
> think that roc's input on issues he sees about supporting EME in Gecko 
> has been particularly important and defines concrete hurdles that this 
> group must overcome.
> 
> So to summarise, at this point in the discussion, I think our motto 
> should be: More Open Source, Less Freedom Fries.

So let me get this straight, you want to advance open source DRM
by integrating it into the web browser?  What can I say.

Even if DRM were open source it still has no place in the web browser.
There would still be some keys etc that would have to be part of a
trusted computing platform etc that allows the content author to
gain privileged control of the users computer.

cheers
Fred