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: Arthur Clifford <art@artspad.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:59:58 -0700
Message-Id: <00EC7A0A-97A8-446A-9E9A-11B27CDF3C56@artspad.net>
To: "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
Hello Dr Olaf,

While I do understand there are a plethora of license markups out there my only point/consideration would be within html markup how to indicate one of those markup specs applies to something specific in HTML.

By analogy, consider how for a long time if somebody wanted to have a label next to a form element they might do something basic like:
<b>Name: </b><input id='name' type...>...</input>
However, now we can do:
<label target='name'>Name:</label>.<input id='name' type=...>...</input>

From Creative Commons I can generate HTML markup to include in my page:
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.

Now what happens if I have:
<img id='myImage' ... />
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>
<img id='yourimage' .../>

To which image does the creative commons markup apply?

If there are newer tags in HTML 5 that are comparable to <label> that allow arbitrary rights expression while allowing targeting of the DOM element containing whatever the rights expression is geared toward, then there's not much more to say. 

To be clear I'm not saying that the HTML spec would need to pick a rights expression standard. I'm just suggesting that if one agrees that html should be semantic that it should be semantically clear what the rights expression applies to. If that capability exists or could be made to exist, then the ability to mine the expression for any rights enforcement rules to apply to the targeted content would be the natural evolution of that and could lead to more effective drm enforcement.

Art C.




On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Arthur Clifford <art@artspad.net> wrote:

> The only problem with:
>> <p>Copyright  YYYY Rightsholder</p>
> Is that it claims copright for nothing in particular and from a strictly DOM perspective seems to claim copyright for the <p> tag it is contained within.
> 
> The fact is that you don't need the copyright line in a document to be able to claim copyright protection. If I create something and you replicate it and claim it as your own I can sue you for that. Everything is tied to the law whether you want it to be or not, because when there is a conflict that needs resolution you need a governing body to hear the case and decide on it.
> 
> The point of digital rights expression is to for an author to state the intended use of digital media (which I would include blocks of text). Its presence is to protect the creator and anybody who may want to legitimately use something. If you state that something is free to be reused by having some sort of Creative Commons markup and I use your content then you are no longer protected by standard copyright because you gave up that right and granted everyone the right to use the content. This is working within the law for the mutual protection of the author and would-be content user.
> 
> I don't see how the public domain is under any legal threat it isn't currently under with or without drm. If anything the threat is that the law may have an opportunity to become savvier about protecting the rights of digital authors which is a relatively new concept within the realm of law and we're still in a wild wild west where anything, or many things, go.
> 
> If I have a bunch of content that people really want and I put it up online and have a copyright statement, people can download and use it all they want or find it on images.google.com and think its free. Just because I put it up online doesn't mean you have the right to use it, and so if I find my work on peoples sites I can go on a suing spree. How does that protect the public domain?
> 
> Wouldn't the appropriate thing to do is suggest that browsers not allow save-as features for anything that hasn't explicitly allowed duplication of content? It wouldn't prevent anybody from doing a screenshot and cropping the target image or content out but there would also be nothing preventing me from suing someone who did.  Keeping innocent people innocent is in the interest of the public and clearly identifying what is in the public domain and to what degree it is in the public domain is how you protect the public domain.  We can do that through markup agreed upon by a consortium dedicated to the world wide web, if only there were such a group .... The problem is that there are things that are considered public domain that aren't and when anybody suggests there may be a way to distinguish what shouldn't be in the public domain from what should, we get a diatribe against copyright.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Lastly, if I want to legitimately utilize an image you have created in a product I sell and I'm willing to pay for it, and I do not see an expression of a) who created, b) what I have with regard to the object of interest, or c) where to go to determine that information, I would then not use the image and you would not get paid for it. If your intent is to make the image public domain for free and you express that I know I can utilize your image. If you say the image is public domain but anybody utilizing it to make a profit must get written permission by writing to .... Then I know what to do to get permission and possibly pay you for what you have created. This is less about enforcement as it is in letting people know what they must do to legitimately use your content. It means I can as a consumer of your original work respect your preferences and know what I can do legally. That is pure unadulterated respect; a concept missing from the notion of everything belongs in the public domain without restriction.
> 
> Art C
> 
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Laurel L. Russwurm <laurel.l@russwurm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Mike hit it exactly.
>> 
>>>   <p>Copyright  YYYY Rightsholder</p>
>>> 
>>> Particularly useful for denoting rights for digital material. It has
>>> worked well for non-digital media for quite some time, as well.
>> 
>> As long as governments have been imposing the monopoly of copyright,
>> the expression of such rights have been marked up as part of the content, and enforced in the real world by law.
>> 
>> Although some are obsessed with DRM and digital rights markup, the W3C specifications are not the appropriate place for any kind of digital rights expression or enforcement.
>> 
>> DRM is dangerous because it's ineffectiveness necessitates being double locked with law, which poses additional threat to both the public domain and culture.  That is already happening.
>> 
>> Including DRM into the standard is the first step toward Internet lock down at the core.  Because I value the Internet as an important means of disseminating culture,  I strongly oppose the incorporation of DRM into any part of the W3C Standard.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Laurel L. Russwurm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 13-06-12 09:33 PM, Michael Gratton wrote:
>>> On 13/06/13 09:48, Arthur Clifford wrote:
>>>> In the context of html though digital rights markup (which is
>>>> arguably part of managing digital rights) seems a relevant topic.
>>> 
>>> You are correct. I find markup such as this:
>>> 
>>>  <p>Copyright  YYYY Rightsholder</p>
>>> 
>>> Particularly useful for denoting rights for digital material. It has
>>> worked well for non-digital media for quite some time, as well.
>>> 
>>> //Mike
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 23:00:45 UTC

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