W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Keep DRM out of Web standards -- Reject the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:07:54 +0100
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <201306191107.54821.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Arthur Clifford:

....
>
> Proper copyright support with minimal changes to the spec would be more like
> <image id='someimage' src="..."></image>
> <rights target='someimage' type="copyright">Copyright  YYYY 
Rightsholder</rights>
>
> Because that would say to what the copyright applied.  And it would allow 
multiple copyrighted materials in the same document and to clearly state to 
which object the rights apply.
>
> And to thoroughly go against the grain here:
> <rights target='someimage'  savable='false' printable='true' 
type="copyright">Copyright  YYYY Rightsholder</rights>
>
> The controlling attributes or expressions of rights to enable or disable 
features in user agents would have to be agreed upon by the user agent 
developers.
>

....

As already mentioned, this is what you can do already now with
RDF(a), XHTML+RDFa, SVG+RDFa, Dublin Core, Creative Commons etc.
For example for electronic books in EPUB, not from W3C, 
metadata using Dublin Core elements is already the specified 
way to indicate these things as well.
Following the extensions of the current HTML5 draft, one can
used something called microdata as well, if one needs yet another
approach than the more advanced XHTML+RDFa.

Encryption is another issue - it does not protect or manages rights 
in any way,  it simply encrypts information, not more - maybe sometimes 
this is necessary, but it is important, that those, who get the encrypted 
message, have the option to encrypt it to something accessible - 
and this without the need for a specific operation system, internet 
connection or a service out of their domain/control, even more if 
they paid to become owner of such a piece of information. 
Once one sells it, the new owner is responsible not to republish 
the information, it the author does not want this. If the author does 
not trust into the new owner to protect the data, he should not share 
critical information with such a person.
One important issue about encrypted data is, that an attacker gets no 
information about how to decrypt the message, therefore it is pointless 
to give a general standard for this, it only helps to decrypt it.
The opposite is true for the person, that is the intended target of
the message.


Olaf
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 10:40:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:29 UTC