RE: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

John C. Vernaleo wrote
> 
> I don't think anyone has suggested that stopping the EME proposal (or
> whatever exactly it technically is at this point) will stop DRM on the
> web.  That is an pretty serious mischaracterization of the positions of
> the people who do not agree with it. 

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has announced that it has filed a
formal objection to the W3C's draft for EME (Encrypted Media Extensions), a
standard being developed by the W3C's HTML working group to enable
standardised DRM plugins for streamed media."
-
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/EFF-formally-objects-to-W3C-DRM-propo
sal-1873487.html

Outside of the technical falsehood being expressed here (one of the goals
EME is seeking is to remove the need for plugins), the EFF continues to
couple EME with DRM, despite the W3C expressly stating the contrary: 

"W3C is not developing a new DRM system, nor are we embracing DRM as an
organization." - http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/03/drm_and_the_open_web.html 

They are, in effect, calling W3C management liars.


> Speaking largely for myself, I
> don't
> like the idea of the w3c endorsing such a think and I disapprove of DRM
> on
> a variety of grounds, but I don't believe stopping this proposal will
> magically make DRM go away. 

This is NOT about the W3C "endorsing DRM", despite what the EFF propaganda
might want you to believe; it is about where this technical effort is going
to happen (because it WILL happen), and how much oversight and input average
netizens can provide. 

It comes down to 2 choices: work on it in the open at the W3C, or have the
work continue elsewhere or behind closed doors where we have no (or less)
input on the outcome. There is no third option.


> So I don't appreciate you suggesting such
> ignorance or magical thinking on "our side" (and I also hate this seems
> to
> turn into and our side vs. their side argument).  I know that I have
> not
> suggested such things about you or anyone else who is in favor of EME.

I am not sure how much you have been following this discussion, but there
does appear to be a very hard line between those who want to see Standards
work continue to happen in the open at the W3C, and those who are
philosophically opposed to Content Protection on the web. I didn't draw that
line, but if I have to pick a side...

JF

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:29:10 UTC