RE: Brightcove retreats from HTML5, pushes refreshed SDKs for native Android, iOS apps

> From: watsonm@netflix.com
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:26:31 +0000
...








> > > The encryption of Premium Content is not going to magically

> > > go away because the W3C refused to address that business

> > > need.



> > You could use the same argument to support DRM on all the

> > web content.  If you follow this to the limit then the open web

> > platform becomes nothing but a web router passing opaque

> > traffic to DRM components.  This is not a vision that many of

> > us share.








> You can't make the same argument, because it is really
> only premium video content that is using DRM on the web
> today and all John said is that this is not going to magically
> go away.

There does not appear to be any boundary defined in the
reasoning John used.  The tone appears to be that if any
content author requires restrictions on the use of web
content then it should be addresses.  What would be the
reasoning behind premium video content authors being
the only exception?

> > > Wishing and hoping for some kind of utopian world where
> > > all entertainment content is freely available without restriction

> > > is naïve at best. 


> > I believe this is a misrepresentation because this it is certainly

> > not the basis for my objection to the EME.



...


> > Perhaps you mean: Wishing and hoping for some kind
> > of utopian world where open web content is freely usable

> > once legally received on an open web platform is naïve

> > at best?



> > Perhaps the W3C means: We do not equate 'open'

> > content with material that must be usable free of charge

> > once it has been legally downloaded?








> You seem to imagine a world where the only supported business
> model on the web for video content is a download-to-own one.

No, not at all.  There is a large solution space for such business
models and many may well be far less objectionable.  But this is
a matter that deserves more discussion.  I am just trying to
raise a concern that some of the proponents are
misrepresenting the objections that I have to be related
to access control to servers.

Does anyone object to DRM on the basis that it could be
used to restrict access to servers?

While DRM may well be used to address server access
control, it would not appear to be necessary to solve this
problem.

Surely narrowing the discussion would be constructive.

> The problem is that this is not a very popular model with
> consumers for video (unlike music). The Internet has been
> very successful at
 supporting new business models, so a
> one-size-fits-all approach there for the 'open web' would
> be unfortunate, to say the least.

There may well be ways that these users needs can be
supported while mitigating some of the negative impact.

I have all along suggested using Web Internets to make
it relatively seamless for users to move from the open
web platform to restricted components for viewing
premium video content.

> Rental and subscriptions models are examples where the
> content is not 'freely usable' once legally obtained, any
> more than you are free to do anything with a rental car
> that you would be free to do with your own car.
> Consumers understand and appear very
 happy with
> this situation as it provides access to content for a far
> lower price than 'ownership', which - as I said - most
> people don't want for video.

It's the technology demanded to enforce these agreements
that is the concern and the imbalances and negative
impacts that this has on everyone irrespective of their
desire to even view premium video content under these
terms.


> Are you really advocating that such business models
> not be supported by the open web ? That the only model
> should be one where content is 'freely usable' once
> received (for example can be stored indefinitely for later use).



The use of the term 'open web' in this question makes
this difficult to answer, and I believe a matter for further
discussion.  But I am certainly not advocating that such
business models not be supported on the Internet - there
is a large solution space and there many well be many
solutions that I would be much happier with.   The industry
already has many solutions available.   This does not
mean that there is no cause to object to the proposed
solution.

In summary, using tactics that misrepresent opponents and
that then proceed to use this misrepresentation to dismiss
their concerns may not be constructive.

cheers
Fred