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 15:31:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dJvO4QsD59v+q9UnDj9K6b=kbjVtRway3=WeSx1EFw-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:02 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 2013, at 22:27 , "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> It is illegal to circumvent DRM in the US and many other countries.
> >
> > So you're saying that you should be able to break a license agreement
> with impunity, and do what you like with material that is not yours?
>
> I believe it is fundamentally and unarguably bad to enshrine into the
> web a form of strong vendor-specificity, particularly when the vendors
> in question have no stake in the health of the open web, and in fact
> gain short-term benefit from the web moving to a less free model.


Which vendors are you referring to? How to do you conclude they have no
stake in the health of the open web?


> It
> has been *explicitly admitted* that this specification will prevent
> certain common combinations of browser and OS to play videos using
> this technology.


Wrong. Nothing in this spec precludes any combination of browser and OS.
Browser and OS vendors make their own decisions about whether to constrain
their implementation, about what licensing terms to accept, and so on. Use
of EME absolutely does not require a UA or OS vendor to agree to any
particular license arrangement or constraint.


>  It is very likely, given the explicitly admitted low
> chance of interoperable DRM standards, that there will be extended
> incompatibilities between browsers on non-free OSes as well for a long
> time.
>

Perhaps, but that is not relevant. On the other hand, EME provides
mechanisms that improve interoperability that can eventually reduce use of
non-interoperable DRM components. You appear to oppose EME because it
doesn't remove all such interoperability issues at one blow.



>
>
> > It's not even as if the latest recording of your favorite musician is a
> necessity of life, either.  If *you* don't like the terms they set on your
> ability to listen to their music, don't buy it.  Telling others that they
> cannot, and they cannot use your favorite medium, is ...
>
> Please stop trying to impugn my motives, or imply that I am arguing
> from a shallow position of personal desire.  It is beneath you.  I am
> trying to keep the web platform as free and open as possible.  This is
> supposed to be the goal of this organization.
>

Some readers apparently interpret your reasoning from "moral" grounds as
just the opposite; namely, your desire to impose your particular moral
position. That is clearly a contradiction to your claim that you are trying
to improve freedom and openness.


>
> If it wasn't for my long experience watching and participating in
> discussions about DRM and related technologies, I'd find this entire
> discussion, and the fact that smart people are actually defending the
> idea of DRM, absolutely baffling.  I'm not sure if it's an improvement
> that I now find it merely disappointing.
>

You seem to believe that favoring EME means favoring DRM. I don't believe
that is true. That DRM is a possible application of EME does not make EME
bad or wrong and more than use of HTML for porn makes HTML bad or wrong
(for those that find porn morally wrong).
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 22:32:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 January 2013 22:32:48 GMT