- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:10:27 -0400
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 8/19/2013 6:52 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
>> I'm sorry for my (unfortunate) starting words.
>> I'm new here and still don't understand how things works on the W3C
>> completely.
> First, a handful of rich and powerful companies with the ear of both the
> Director and CEO of the W3C decide they want DRM in HTML5. So they
> implement an interop system for DRM called EME, and suggest that EME
> could become a W3C standard.
>
> The decision that this work is in scope is then made behind closed
> doors, without - as far as I can tell - any wider consultation.
>
> Once that decision has been made, and the CEO briefed to use all the
> proper propaganda terms ('premium content' indeed), 'consultation'
> begins. This is very limited in scope, intended solely to allow debate
> on the best way of implementing DRM interop in HTML5.
This is a pretty insulting description of an honest attempt by me to
explain the Director's decision; without any "briefing" as accused.
>
>
> Any attempt to ask that work on EME be halted altogether is met with one
> or more of the following:
>
> - claims that EME is not DRM, despite its sole purpose being interop
> with closed-source, proprietary DRM systems
>
> - claims that EME is 'more open' than alternatives
>
> - argument that certain advantages (standardisation of the interop
> layer, better accessibility) are worth sacrificing the W3Cs Open Web
> principles
>
> - requests for a better design (in other words, we don't acknowledge
> your arguments in favour of stopping work altogether, but we'll listen
> to ideas for a better design)
>
> - statements that, as the work has been deemed in-scope by the
> director, it's going to happen regardless
>
> - argument that, because some companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft) are
> forging ahead with their own EME implementations anyway, it's better to
> have that work standardised through the W3C
>
> - claims that, despite the fact that the Internet is essentially built
> upon Free Software, it's okay to flip the bird at that community and
> embrace a standard that is inimical to Free Software
>
> The usual suspects - e.g. the EFF and the FSF - chime in with their
> opinions, either being unaware of or quixotically ignoring the fact that
> their protests will fall on deaf ears.
>
> Then, once you fully realise all of the above, you give up in disgust.
> You feel a lingering embarrassment for having once championed
> W3C-endorsed standards ("let's ensure our site is standards-compliant,
> see, the W3C even provides a validator!"), and resolve not to be so
> naive in the future.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web
>
> ... for more details.
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 01:10:27 UTC