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

Woooh...

Good speech. But you distort our words and try to show us as "terrorist" 
using religion analogy.

The facts are simple:

DRM/EME are just not free, even that they do not allow open source 
implementation.

We don't want these kind of proprietary software that cannot be 
implemented freely in the web, this makes the web private.
This is bad and kill the market and business opportunities for all.

There is nothing to do with Christianity, nor Muslim, nor religion. We 
are speeking about technical facts and algorithms.
It is math, and math should stay free for everybody.

That's all.

Best regards.

Gaël,

Le 30/05/2013 22:09, John Foliot a écrit :
> <non-technical post, with apologies>
>
> Andreas, Gaël, Florian,
>
> Just so that I have a clear understanding of what you are suggesting here:
>
> You, and the EFF, under the banner of "Freedom" and "Openness" are in fact
> attempting to BLOCK, to STOP COLD, a number of software partners from
> working - in the Open and under public scrutiny - on a technical
> specification at the W3C that can be used on the Web Platform. Never mind
> that this effort is being contributed freely, and it's trajectory path for
> Final Recommendation includes milestones such as community input and comment
> on its *technical* merits, an accessibility review by the PFWG, and a
> published call for Patent claims prior to standardization.
>
> Your stated reasoning appears to be that if you are "successful" you will
> have somehow stopped Digital Rights Management from being used on the web,
> or being supported by commercial browsers developed by privately held
> commercial companies today. The Web "MUST REMAIN FREE!!!" you rally. As an
> analogy, I see this as akin to stating that you support freedom of religion
> as long as that religion is based upon a form of Christianity - anyone who
> deviates from that myopic perspective is "wrong", misguided, or simply
> "greedy".
>
>
> In *my* Open Web, any group that produces a specification and then releases
> it to be used by others without any patent encumbrance is contributing to
> the Open Web Stack. And funny enough, that seems to be how the web works
> today. (In the words of TBL, the web succeeded because they didn't have to
> ask anyone's permission to do what they did. However now, apparently *this*
> particular work cannot proceed at the W3C because the EFF and FOSS
> supporters don't want to grant their permission. Ya, how does that work
> exactly?...)
>
> My Open Web runs using protocols such as TCP/IP
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt), HTTP
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt) and IPv4/IPv6
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt) - all developed at the Internet
> Engineering Task Force (IETF).
>
> On my Open Web authors create complex scripted web applications using
> JavaScript (an ECMA Standard -
> http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/), while others freely
> distribute PDFs (a 'closed' ISO standard today -
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html) to my browser, while
> others again exclusively use .mp4/MPEG 4 (also an ISO standard -
> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38538) with H.264
> encodings (an ITU Standard http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264 that has
> patent encumbrance) for the delivery of videos to my browser.
>
> Because, you see, my Open Web, the "web of standards", is not some
> monolithic effort policed and controlled by the W3C - yes, the W3C is a
> significant player in that space, and frankly to my mind their operating
> model is far superior to some of those other standards bodies I just
> referenced in terms of Openness and Community input/involvement. But to be
> crystal clear, they don't exclusively run this show - nobody does (a point
> that I believe eventually even the WHAT WG came to understand - at least
> most of them). That might seem messy, that might seem chaotic, but that is
> the reality, and the links that I have just provided are my proof.
>
> My question to you then is this: what happens if you *are* successful in
> stopping this effort at the W3C? Do you think that those who require this
> technology will simply pack up their tents and go home, accepting "defeat"?
>
> What is to stop them from going to any of the other standards bodies I just
> mentioned, or perhaps yet another Standards group (SMPTE -
> https://www.smpte.org - comes to mind, or a business consortium such as
> UltraViolet - www.uvvu.com/)? Or what if a private company like Google just
> says to heck with it, we will implement a standard internally because our
> business partners and business needs require one, and you can either use it
> or not - we don’t care? (Ref: http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper)
> If the content OWNERS of this entertainment media then believe that the
> "magic Google thing" meets their needs, and a browser like Chrome/Blink
> (along with say a partner like Microsoft) start implementing that solution,
> what then? Do you really think you will be any further ahead? I don't - in
> fact I think we will be in a worse situation than what appears to be
> emerging today, where consensus (not unanimity) and a collective input play
> a significant role in the specification development.
>
> You and your buddies can continue to wrap yourself in the warm and fuzzy
> feeling that is FOSS, and continue to pretend that "entertainment content"
> somehow contains an implied concept that once you license it, it is yours to
> use however you want, whenever you want, wherever you want and to heck with
> the rights of the Owners; that somehow "Game of Thrones" is just like Linux
> and Apache, but in the real world, in *my* Open Web world, openness means
> that anyone can use the gifts that TBL and others have given us to share
> content with the world, but under *our* terms, not the terms of a
> politically motivated group who think that ownership rights, and the right
> to control and monetize what you have invested in, should no longer exist. I
> don't prescribe to that, and neither do many others.
>
> So, good luck with your battle. Feel free to continue to believe that
> "Freedom of Religion is a global right, (as long as that religion is based
> upon a form of Christianity)" because honestly, that is exactly how your
> stance comes off to me.
>
> JF
>
> </non-technical post, with apologies>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andreas Kuckartz [mailto:A.Kuckartz@ping.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:57 PM
>> To: Sam Ruby; timbl@w3.org
>> Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org; public-html-media@w3.org
>> Subject: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish
>> Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working
>> Draft (FPWD)
>>
>> This is a Formal Objection against the Working Group Decision to
>> publish
>> Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working
>> Draft
>> (FPWD).
>>
>> EME is not compatible with the Open Web and can not be made compatible
>> with it.
>>
>> For simplicity I refer to the Formal Objection raised by the EFF
>> regarding the HTML WG Draft Charter:
>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg
>>
>> In addition to that I refer to these two issues:
>>
>> EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source
>> implementations.
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967
>>
>> That issue was "resolved" by one of the authors of EME as an alleged
>> duplicate of another issue:
>>
>> EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas
>
>


-- 
Gaël Pegliasco, chef de projet
MAKINA CORPUS - www.makina-corpus.com
29 Quai de Versailles FR-44000 Nantes
T : +33 (0) 2 51 79 80 84 / M-GSM: +33 (0)6 41 69 16 09

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 06:01:54 UTC