RE: Principles (was RE: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?)

Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> Yes and orthogonal to DRMs.

"Accessibility and DRMs" might seem orthogonal to you Karl (less so to
Henri), but I was speaking in the context of the current EME/CDM proposal,
and *not* DRM as often manifest today. If you wish to take me to task on
precision and pedantry, then I too will respond that way.

> 
> You can have accessibility with DRM, you can have accessibility without
> DRM, because it is unrelated. You can have UI non accessible with DRM,
> you can have UI non accessible without DRM. It is not a good criteria
> for the discussion.

Traditionally, with closed DRM systems, the 'insertion' of Assistive
Technology into the tech stack was interpreted as an "attack" (3rd party
software), which triggered the 'response' of the DRM system - locking out
the user. I think everyone can agree this is a problem.

As has often been pointed out, one of the goals of the EME/CDM proposal is
to lessen the overall footprint of the content protection system, and assign
the "runtime", playback and controls of the media asset to the browser: the
CDM does the key management and decryption piece only, and *the browser*
does the rest.

I have seen nothing, nor read anything, that would suggest that this
solution would negatively interact with the browser or media controls once
the content has been lawfully decrypted, and further, after specifically
asking at the April F2F, I remain convinced at this time that nothing about
EME/CDM will have any impact on the in-band or out-of-band delivery of
captions, transcripts, video description or picture-in-picture sign language
translations (to name a few). Further, because the browser is the media
player, and browsers and the Accessibility API(s) are actually quite well
synched today, I see nothing where the controls will be affected either - as
long as the content is legally being provided. 

Karl, I am happy to be proven wrong on *any* of this (and you for one should
know that if it fails accessibility, I will fight tenaciously and
ferociously to get that fixed - or rejected), but to be able to prove this,
we need implementations, and to get implementations we need a draft spec,
and we are getting a draft spec now inside of the W3C, where accessibility
concerns are given ample accord in the Recommendations process. I do not see
any down side through my lens.


> 
> > These engineers are currently doing that work
> > inside of the W3C, a place where work is done in the open, is open to
> public
> > scrutiny and feedback,
> 
> 
> Any discussions happening in an open forum is better than in a closed
> forum. Still unrelated to what is at stake.

I understand where you might believe this to be true, but I respectfully
disagree. Too often, technical solutions 'emerge' from behind closed doors,
and for whatever reasons, they are lacking or negligent on aspects of
accessibility. Open work and candid feedback on EME/CDMs inside of the W3C
is a significant step towards reducing this common 'design' problem.

Once again, what is being discussed - and proposed - is a system (EME/CDM)
which will afford content protection of various degrees to content owners (a
request both lawful and legitimate in my opinion). It is simple and easy for
the popular press and opponents to instantly brand this DRM, but DRM has a
whole lot of negative 'baggage' attached to it that the proposed EME/CDM
solution is seeking to reduce or eliminate - like accessibility issues with
the system controls (etc.)

Finally, as Jeff Jaffe noted to you in his response to you:

<start>
	"The correct statement, as mentioned in [1] is that the W3C Director
has 
established that work on content protection for the Web is in scope for 
the HTML Working Group.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html

	What was declared in scope was a topic - not a particular solution
such 
as the current EME draft."
<end>

*NOT* DRM, and not a blanket endorsement of EME. You have something better?
Please do bring it forward - timbl has declared that to be in scope.


> 
> > in an effort to
> > educate, explain, and reason on why this messy bit of engineering
> must
> > exist,
> 
> Here is the core of the issue. "Must exist". This is set as a
> requirement. A part of the industry wants it, it doesn't mean, it must
> exist.

Karl, if I re-wrote that sentence to read:

	"...on why this messy bit of engineering *WILL* exist..."

...would that accuracy make you feel better? Whether inside of the "open web
stack", or outside of it with completely closed proprietary "apps" (I'm
looking at you mobile space), these content owners *will* have a content
protection system in place - that is, to me, a foregone conclusion - the
technology exists today, and the resolve exists today. The real question is,
will we be able to find an open-enough content protection solution for them
so that they don't have to turn to "apps" (or traditional plugins) to
achieve their goals? Or will the W3C throw in the towel on finding a
workable solution, leaving it to proprietary solutions and perpetuating a
fragmented ecosystem? 

And since the subject line of *this* email is "Principles", how does
fostering and accepting a fragmented internet ecosystem advance the W3C's
goals?


> 
> There is a misleading statement in Jeff's blog post [1]

I believe that Jeff has responded directly to this point.

 
> 
> > I would strongly suggest that the best way to affect "success" is to
> work
> > with these engineers, not try to stop them or drive them away from
> the W3C.
> 
> Yes, but not necessary toward a system which solidifies DRM in the
> ecosystem. I have said in another message the most important is to
> provide a way to pay the artists. That is what is at stake. This does
> not equate with DRM-only world.

"Paying" the artist is indeed one of the goals, but so are (I believe)
imposing some controls over unauthorized distribution/redistribution,
unauthorized copying, and unauthorized alteration, manipulation or creation
of derivative works based upon the restricted content. Much of the
philosophical debate I have seen here to date is around whether or not that
is how content on the web "should be". 

JF

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 15:59:19 UTC