W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Oppose DRM ! Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:53:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dKwuvZqDoJeBvPKmynoLFx2rH5YukoW3uO9VuqtpqY4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-html-admin@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:32 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Mark Watson wrote:
> >
> > As I've said before, GPLv3 licensors are just as entitled to place
> > these restrictions on how their hard work is used as video content
> > licensors are to place restrictions on the uses made of their work. The
> > fact that these two groups of people have made mutually incompatible
> > license choices is just the way things are and the fact that they are
> > free to make those choices is a good thing. It's not a reason to object
> > to this work.
>
> +1
>
> The gist of many of the objections to date have been based on political
> and philosophical differences around how the web should be used. If you
> truly ascribe to the notion that the Web Platform be open to all,
> irrespective of their philosophical position on *any* topic, then the
> objections around "incompatibility with FOSS" to date should be rejected
> out of hand. Insisting that it *only* be used in one way - *your way* - as
> many appear to be suggesting, isn't open, it's dictated.
>
> As I previously noted, there is a significant number of W3C stakeholders
> who desire to use this open platform to interact with their constituents -
> people who, on both sides of the transaction, agree to enter into a
> contract. As part of that contract, there is a need for a means to secure
> the intellectual property that is being exchanged, so that the intellectual
> property remains marketable to those who initially invested in the creation
> of that content. To suggest that they not be entitled to that right is
> astoundingly naive and offensive to me.
>
> If *you* choose not to engage in that contract then that is your right; to
> insist that nobody else can make that choice because you are opposed to it
> on philosophical grounds over-steps your, and the W3C's, mandate. (As a
> side-note, even if the W3C standardizes a specification, there is
> absolutely no mandate for any W3C member - including browser vendors - to
> adopt that specification into their software. Those BUSINESSES will make
> their own business decisions, based upon their own business requirements.)
>
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with you on moral grounds, but that's neither here nor
> > there.  I'm talking *technically* incompatible.
>
> No Tab, *Technically* it can be done (was it Jonas Siking who stated "this
> is software, we can do anything"?) but *Philosophically* it contravenes
> other software licenses in use in any given stack. None of those other
> licenses place technical barriers in the way, only philosophical ones.
> (Using FFMPEG I can both encode and decode H.264/.mp4 files on Linux, even
> though there is a contradiction in licensing philosophy there as well.)
>
> That may offend your morals and sense of right and wrong, but to state
> that it is technically unfeasible is simply untrue. (I note that given the
> business need to remain competitive, Mozilla/Firefox have figured out how
> to work with the licensing restrictions of H.264 -
> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/01/firefox-development-highlights-h-264-mp3-support-on-windows-scoped-stylesheets-more/)
> and so this is, and remains not so much a technical problem, but a
> philosophical problem for you and others.
>
>
> Thus, I again ask that those who have objections to the proposed Encrypted
> Media Extension specification limit them to specific technical problems
> with the current draft under discussion (and I note that some useful dialog
> has emerged from, among others, Robert O'Callahan), or, barring that, take
> the use-case requirement and create an alternative solution which can be
> brought forward as an alternative Extension Spec for consideration.
>
> Objecting to, or rejecting out-right the use-case requirements due to
> philosophical posturing is (in my opinion) out-of-scope for this list.
>

+1 to everything JF says above; Tab's claims that JF is pretending that the
"evolution of the web" is "unimportant or irrelevant", that JF is trying to
"dishonestly twist" the "concepts", that JF is "attempting to cast this as
a battle between naive web folks and friendly businesses" are nothing if
not ad hominem arguments... JF is right in asking that we focus on
technical issues, not moral or philosophical positions;

so far, the only potential technical argument I've seen is from Ian, having
to do with proliferation of plug-ins; however, I believe that his
characterization of EME as promoting plug-ins is incorrect, and further, is
a UA implementation issue and not a standards issue, unless someone wishes
to bring forward a standard for a CDM API
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 21:53:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 January 2013 21:53:55 GMT