Re: Request for feedback on EME Use Cases

Jerry,

But from our point of view, the 'Content Distributor' is often the problem.
If you don't give us a method of controlling them, the standard is useless
to us.

Wayne



On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Jerry Smith (WINDOWS) <jdsmith@microsoft.com
> wrote:

>  Thanks for clarifying, Wayne.  I understand the concerns you’ve raised.
> The capabilities you request though aren’t really ones that EME can
> implement.  EME supports keySystem exchanges between clients and content
> services; but does not itself issue keys, authorize playback or have any
> mechanism for requesting that content be removed from distribution.  These
> are governed by policies and features controlled by the content
> distributor, and EME isn’t positioned to impose requirements on them.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> *From:* Wayne Borean [mailto:wborean@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 1, 2014 9:19 PM
> *To:* Jerry Smith (WINDOWS)
> *Cc:* Mark Watson; Joe Steele; public-html-media@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Request for feedback on EME Use Cases
>
>
>
>
>
> Jerry,
>
>
>
> Sorry, no, that wasn't what I was requesting. What I was requesting was
> that the system make it simple and as close to free as possible for a
> creator to obtain a key, and for the creator to take down things which
> he/she believed were infringing.
>
>
>
> At which point we would leave it to the courts to make the final
> determination.
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jerry Smith (WINDOWS) <
> jdsmith@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  It appears you are requesting that keySystems or license servers
> communicate with content authors when authorizing media playback.  If so,
> your suggestion wouldn’t really involve issuing additional keys, but would
> instead add a third party reporting requirement to the EME specification.
> I would expect this to have privacy and security considerations.  It would
> done not to assist in the playback of encrypted content, but to serve a
> different purpose.  Do I understand this correctly?
>
>
>
> EME today facilitates key message exchanges between keySystems and license
> servers, but does not directly control the details of these messages.  The
> key messages are generally subject to content protection approaches that
> are keySystem specific.  Adding reporting requirements from keySystems to
> specific author registration services seems like a broad departure from
> this philosophy.  As Mark suggested, this is probably best decided upon by
> the keySystem providers themselves, and not in a W3C specification.
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Wayne Borean [mailto:wborean@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:53 PM
> *To:* Mark Watson
> *Cc:* Joe Steele; public-html-media@w3.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Request for feedback on EME Use Cases
>
>
>
>
>
> Why? You already have to have a key system in place. All this requires is
> expanding it from corporate use, to private use.
>
>
>
> In simple terms, you'd be issuing a lot more keys.
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>
>  I'm not sure I follow exactly how such a scheme would work, but in the
> context of EME, any such scheme would be a feature of a keysystem, since it
> is the keysystem that makes the decision as to whether the content can be
> decrypted or not. We don't define keysystem features, though we do
> constrain them somewhat, in the EME specification. So it would seem the
> space is there, technically, for someone to implement your scheme if they
> chose to do so, but the problem is more of a market / political one that we
> are not in a position to solve in our work in W3C.
>
>
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Joe,
>
>
>
> I worked as a programmer, a long time ago. There is a way to implement my
> idea.
>
>
>
> You'd have to issue a key to anyone who is on file with Collections Canada
> <http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html>, and the American
> equivalent, which would allow them to take down any infringing content, no
> matter who posted it. If the poster wished it back up, they would have to
> file suit in the courts over the rights.
>
>
>
> The problem is, that unless a government agency, or a separate entity not
> affiliated with any of those companies was set up to run the system, it
> could be bypassed. Oh, and the costs of a key would have to be affordable
> for independents.
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Wayne,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you are asking. The
> author control problem you are describing for individual creators is
> roughly the same problem that studios have today, where they are copyright
> holders for content being distributed via file-sharing networks without
> their consent.
>
>
>
> This standard should make it easier in the long run for content to be
> distributed, but it does not provide the content owners any new controls
> over how their content is distributed. It provides an explicit mechanism
> for one type of control (encryption and key acquisition) and it allows for
> providing additional types of control (e.g. output protection). If an
> individual creator wanted to publish their content and protect it from
> infringing uses by any of the big companies you mention, they could
> leverage the protections this standard describes also.
>
>
>
> It sounds like you would like to see a mechanism for individual authors to
> exercise additional control (TBD) over how content is distributed. If you
> have a mechanism to propose, I am sure the group would consider it. Or if
> you could describe the use case in more detail (especially how it differs
> from the general problem studios have) that might be useful.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe,
>
>
>
> Yes, it has to do with what I said back in 2013. Sorry for not following
> up with it then, I've been having some health issues, and have been (up
> till two weeks ago) living on morphine. Yes, I was quite stoned. Legally
> too :)
>
>
>
> Author Control is what the WIPO Internet Treaties
> <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/> are all about. Specifically I'm
> talking about Item 6, Part 1:
>
>
>
>  *Article 6*
>
> *Right of Distribution*
>
> (1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right
> of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and
> copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.
>
> (2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties
> to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the
> right in paragraph (1)
> <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P63_6990>applies
> after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a
> copy of the work with the authorization of the author.5
> <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P65_7506>
>
>  Now I haven't been posting, but I have read a lot of the posts over the
> last year or so. I didn't see any section of the standard which allows the
> author to control distribution. Say I want to cut distribution - how do I
> do it?
>
>   There are a variety of reasons I'm bringing this up. I know a bunch of
> people who've had problems with the distributors. One found his music on
> iTunes, which he had not given permission for, and was unable to get Apple
> to remove it. His response, which was to release the music for free on his
> website, since he wasn't getting paid, was interesting, but probably futile
> because most people are used to buying from iTunes/Amazon/etc., and
> probably wouldn't normally visit his site.
>
> This is just one example - there are a variety of others, some of which
> have lead to amazing court battles. From the artist's point of view,
> control is a huge issue, and from my current understanding of the standard,
> you are not addressing this. If someone steals your creation, you want to
> be able to take action to get it offline now, rather than five years and
> possibly millions of dollars in legal fees later.
>
> I know this may not please a lot of people, but a lot of us consider
> Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Amazon, the RIAA members, the MPAA members, the
> big book companies, etc. to be the enemy in this. The standard does nothing
> to help us. In fact, it may make things worse
>
>    Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>