W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:21:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCmsY9ubFpOdvFpB6MUizdRa963u+aFyWCzBmwikJy+jQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: Christian Kaiser <kaiserc@google.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> As I suggested earlier in this email, the best solution for the web is
>> to wait for the movie distributors to crack and agree to sell videos
>> without DRM.  We can *afford* to wait, after all, since the status quo
>> works.  The falling rate of plugin installation, though, hurts the
>> distributors as long as they insist on using them for DRM.
>
> What you are proposing is that W3C use its role as steward of the web platform to encourage changes in the terms on which third-party commercial services are offered. This is clearly a commercial goal, which I don't see represented in the W3C mission. A decision to adopt this goal would surely need to be made at a senior level in W3C, with advice from the AC.

Only indirectly, insofar as we require commercial services that wish
to work through the web platform to operate on top of technologies
which are open-source and royalty-free.  This is a reasonable goal,
and consistent with our history.


>>  Copyright
>> infringement, as well, will only continue its upward trend, which
>> doesn't hurt the movie-*making* industry, but does hurt the arms of
>> those companies that make money off of plastic discs.
>
> Of course copyright infringement hurts the movie-making industry - they get a chunk of their funding from the 'plastic discs' and other means of distribution. Some fraction of those who infringe copyright could have and would have obtained the copy legally, at a price. There is clearly loss of revenue. You can argue about what fraction could and what fraction would pay for the content if they didn't copy it illegally, but you cannot seriously believe it is zero.
>
> Are you saying copyright infringement doesn't matter, because you believe - wrongly - that it doesn't hurt one part of the industry ?

I'm saying it's irrelevant,  yes.  Despite the rate of copyright
infringement strictly increasing every year for the last decade, the
movie industry's profits have also increased faster than inflation
this last decade.  While one could *potentially* argue that the rise
in profits would be higher without copyright infringement (I'm
ambivalent on this point, though it requires us to ignore reality),
the argument that the movie industry is *hurting* due to copyright
infringement is not supportable.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 18:22:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:46 GMT