Re: W3C mock's users [via Restricted Media Community Group]

> Because, you know, the web shouldn't belong to them as well. It's only
> the "People's Web" right comrade?

Please stop attributing political beliefs to me.  Communism - both the
theory and the practice - makes me a little sick.  I'm a capitalist
through and through - an anarcho-capitalist in fact, because I believe
that free interaction between human beings is a superior model to
Statism.

But that's neither here nor there.

> The W3C is chartered such that the Director has final say. You have zero
> proof that he did not consult with others, and your aspersions that Sir
> Tim Berners-Lee is "for sale" borders on slander.

As I said to Jeff, I'm sorry if that's how my post came over.  

What I *meant* was that the richer, more powerful organisations seem to
have the ear of senior W3C people in a way that others - in particular,
rank and file users of the Internet - don't.  I'm not saying that there
is corruption here, merely - as I've said before, and linked to articles
making the point - a crisis of representation.

> You might not like that this is how the W3C has been chartered, but the
> charter is not, and has never been, secret. In fact, the entire W3c
> process is pretty transparent, even if you feel you are disadvantaged somehow by the charter.

Agreed.

> >  - claims that EME is not DRM, despite its sole purpose being interop
> >  with closed-source, proprietary DRM systems
> 
> Except of course when the API is used to 'hook' to open systems as well,
> such as ClearKey. But let's not confuse the emotions with facts shall we?

Hmmm.  And how many of the backers of EME intend to use ClearKey for
their production systems?  Do tell.
 
> Do you have a better "Open" alternative that solves the problem statement
> that EME is seeking to resolve? Arguments to "just do nothing" are not
> productive. There is a problem that needs to be solved, whether or not it
> is a problem for you. You can't just wish the problem away - it needs to be
> solved, one way or another.

It needs to be solved the way free markets solve it: change your
business model, or die.  Comrade ;)

> The principle of "Openness" is not a binary principle, and does not
> specifically mean that commercial interests do not have a place at the
> W3C.
> Continued suggestions of such are just more FUD being spread by those
> with their own political agenda.

Agreed on both points.  However, EME is so far down one end of the
openness spectrum that it hinders, not enhances, the Open Web.

> >  - 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)
> 
> And AFAIK, that offer still stands.

Sure.  

But ultimately the question is: design a DRM system that can be
implemented on FOSS and doesn't prevent people from accessing content
based on their geographical location, hardware, software etc. ... and
meanwhile, allows content producers precise control over who accesses
what, and when.  It is simply not possible to design a DRM system that
is in line with the W3C mission.
 
> AND EVEN IF WERE DEEMED NOT IN SCOPE BY THE W3C, work in this arena would
> continue - albeit without the benefits that working on web technologies
> *inside* of the W3C brings. The continued imagination that stopping work
> on EME at the W3C will stop Content Protection on the web remains ludicrous.

I never made that claim, because it is indeed ridiculous: companies are
moving ahead with it regardless.  So why does it profit the W3C to
abandon its principles here?  But there's no point rehashing that
particular argument.

> Because standardization is a bad thing? Or is it simply that you wish to
> diminish the role that the W3C plays in Web Standards? That only
> "community approved" standards should be in scope at the W3C, and that any standard
> that is an affront to your personal sense of equity or fairness is
> somehow not worthy of W3C interest? And who ultimately should decide? You?

No, just that DRM is inimical to the W3C mission; the W3C should have
rejected it on those grounds before I ever saw it.  But we've argued
that point in the past; I don't think either of us has anything new to
add.

> Actually, the web uses software, yes, but is and continues to be built
> around *content* - all sorts of content: free content, paid for content,
> encrypted content and non-encrypted content. The "web" is not "software"
> and confusing the two is a very real problem. Deliberately confusing the two
> is just more FUD.
> 
> The web also requires switches and cables/fiber-optic networks and
> routers and an entire backbone of technology that is not, and never was free.
> Somebody pays for that, and fortunes have been made and lost in that
> space too.

Yes to all of the above.  Although I'd argue that the content / software
split is an historical accident, and may yet become irrelevant.

> For that matter, much of the web is also built using "paid-for" software:
> numerous organizations use Windows servers instead of Unix servers, and
> content is very often created using paid software such as Adobe's
> Creative
> Suite. The fact that much of the content on the web is then offered to
> the
> public as free (i.e. at no cost) is a good thing, but I bristle at the
> thought that the web should be restricted to content that is *only* free. 

I never said that, at all.  Uber-capitalist remember?  What I
specifically said was that, given its mission, the W3C should only
embrace standards that can be meaningfully implemented in Free Software.
 That's a very specific statement.
 
> "Free" is a loaded term, and not the whole of what the web is, or should
> be.
> Why should the W3C be limited to that sliver of the pie?

It shouldn't.  See above.
 
> > 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.
> 
> Perhaps because, naively, they fail to understand the above? That there
> is a cost to everything? That even free stuff has a cost. That for better or
> worse, the Free Market model, while not perfect, is the best to emerge to
> date? 

I could see the FSF taking that position, but probably not the EFF.

> I have repeatedly stated that personally I am not a huge fan of DRM, but
> I
> also recognize the fact that there is a need for "something" that solves
> the
> problem statement of the content owners, who for whatever reasons, do not
> want to simply give away their digital content. If EME, or DRM, or
> A-B-C-doe-ray-me is not the answer, what is? And why wouldn't we want
> some
> of the best and brightest engineers to all gather in one place and work
> on
> that problem, ensuring that both the content owners, AND the content
> consumers, have a fair and equitable solution in place? And why do you
> believe that the W3C cannot, or should not, be that place to gather and
> solve this problem? 

I've said this before, but: DRM is an attempt to craft a technological
solution to a business model that has been irrevocably broken by
technological change.  It's like - to invoke Henry Ford - a bunch of
biologists getting together to genetically engineer faster horses to
keep up with automobiles.

'The Internet' has already come up with a myriad ways of paying artists
and other creative people.  Crowd-sourcing, micro-payments,
subscriptions, donations, play-per-use ... none of which have appealed
to the movie companies because they want to continue making
hundred-million-dollar movies.

-- 
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number.

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 21:46:13 UTC