W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Request for feedback on EME Use Cases

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:49:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEnTvdC=jcfpFZmP7_Y0MwZCk2kN3J0DU+=dsRMB4JiJ-wi4TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 15:49:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:04 UTC