Re: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2013/06/10 17:25, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>
> Sent from my [your ad here]
>
>
>
>  On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013/06/10 04:47, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2013 2:20 PM, Joshua Gay wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>  1. Copyright violations (sharing, etc) are a threat to the model
>>>>> One reason the business model needs copy restrictions (aka content
>>>>> protection) is because a significant enough number of users will
>>>>> violate
>>>>> the copyright on the work. This means a lot of people (who otherwise
>>>>> would pay) aren't paying for a work.
>>>>> In the United States and in many other countries with strong democratic
>>>>> traditions, there are powerful laws and justice systems to enforce
>>>>> those
>>>>> laws around copyright. When violating those laws, a person is taking
>>>>> part in criminal behaviour.
>>>>> So, when the W3C does work that is to support a business model like
>>>>> this, they are also giving support to the assumption that a significant
>>>>> portion of the public are likely to take part in criminal behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>> I think this statement is a little strong.  Noone would say that a
>>>> company that provides house alarms assumes that a significant portion
>>>> of the public are likely to take part in criminal behavior. Rather,
>>>> they would say that a significant portion of the public has a desire
>>>> to protect their homes.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The house alarm is used to warn/protect against people who are not
>>> authorised to enter the home whereas DRM is used against identified and
>>> authorised users.
>>>
>>> EME/DRM is more comparable to an alarm designed to protect home owners
>>> against their own guests.
>>>
>>
>> The perfect analogy is probably somewhere in between and is hardly
>> worth searching for.
>>
> [...]
>
>  The point is that there are countless examples in
>> which security measures are used to hinder a minority of people,
>> including customers in many contexts, who want to attack a system or
>> business in some way.
>>
>
>
> That's your point, not *the* point.


There's no one "point". Here I was addressing one of them,


> The point is to explain via a well known and simple analogy what DRM
> represents to us.


That wasn't what I was addressing.


> The part that is wrong is you explaining that searching for analogies is
> not worth it. I think analogies are useful, they help give a simple yet
> clear perspective on what things are, may it be absolute or relative,
> opinion or fact.
>
> Maybe I don't agree with Jeff, but Jeff can easily understand why and
> where our opinions differ.
>
>
>
>
>  The desire of businesses to protect themselves
>> and use technical or other measures to do so is in no other context
>> branded as an assumption that a majority of customers are criminals.
>>
>
>
>
> I do believe that it is a fact, not an opinion, that DRM (especially with
> EME/CDMs) functions by asking a customer to trust the content provider
> and/or their 3rd party(ies) (CDMs) with privileged access to their
> computer. I don't see which part of this would be false, let me know.
>

Yes.


>
> This situation only exists because the content provider cannot trust 100%
> of their customers. To address that the content provider asks the customer
> to trust them. In other words, because I can't trust you a bit I will need
> you to trust me a lot.
>

Because I can't trust a certain minority of users at all, and because I
can't identify that minority, then yes, I will need all users to trust me
or, more precisely, today, the plugin provider I choose or, with EME, their
User Agent provider. The shift from "plugin provider of my choice" to "User
Agent of the users choice" is a big shift enabled by EME.


>
> Why should there even be an authoritarian relationship with the customer ?
>

I wouldn't call it 'authoritarian', but you answered your own question
above.


>
>
> To bring things back to context: Why should the W3C take the side of the
> publishers by endorsing something that would place the client as an
> adversary and try to solve that by enabling a mechanism of user control.
>
>
Because the W3C is in a position to mitigate some of the concerns people
have, by standardizing a model that places browsers (which the users trust)
in control, heads off some of the interoperability concerns that would
otherwise arrive and brings the services concerned out of proprietary
plugin environments and into the HTML5 environment, with all the prospects
for innovation that this entails.


>
>
>
>  Also, fears are certainly not allayed when those who claim to be
>> defending to fair use defend such actions as recording rented or
>> subscription content to play back after the rental or subscription
>> expires (IANAL but I'd appreciate being pointed to legal references
>> that support this being fair use) or (in another thread) brag about
>> their own use of pirated content. Indeed the defense of fair use is
>> undermined by such comments.
>>
>
>
> Please don't use things you've read in other threads from other people as
> an argument against my views on EME.
> This is low.


I was replying to Joshua's mail. I pointed out that which comments came
from another thread. The point stands that the people making those comments
- not you - undermine those defending fair use. I don't think anyone could
mis-interpret my comment above as a slight against you - it was certainly
not intended as such.

...Mark


>
>
>
>
>  I don't think that the W3C should help further or put its efforts toward
>>>>> helping a business model that is intent upon denying fair use, because
>>>>> I
>>>>> believe it is bad for individuals and it is bad for helping to promote
>>>>> the progress of science and useful arts.
>>>>>
>>>> Just for clarity, W3C has embraced the notion that content protection
>>>> is a valid requirement.  We have not embraced the notion that denying
>>>> fair use is a valid requirement.  To the extent that we can find a
>>>> solution that provides content protection and also provides no
>>>> roadblock to fair use - that would be ideal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I read here "The need for content protection outweighs fair use denial
>>> (and control over users)".
>>>
>>
>> I didn't read that into Jeff's statement. The statement doesn't take a
>> position on how the two requirements should be balanced.
>>
>
>
> If EME is accepted then that's exactly what it would mean.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>
>
>