Re: I strongly urge all supporters to reconsider the EME proposal. It is not in your best interests!

On 2013/05/17 17:24, Mark Watson wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> On 2013/05/16 17:41, Mark Watson wrote:

[...]

> Will those who wish to use the EME part of the W3C specifications be 
> required to spend money on keys and/or require the collaboration 
> (active or passive) of a 3rd party ?

[...]

> If I understand well this means that using this part of the "web spec" 
> would exclude those who cannot afford it or those who are refused 
> service by CDM vendors. Will it be possible for anyone to operate their 
> own CDM without relying on 3rd parties ?
> 
> Perhaps this point has not been completely defined yet and it's too 
> early to ask. However, my concern would be that this technology be only 
> usable in exchange for money and/or with the cooperation of a 
> "certified/authorised" 3rd party. If so it would exclude its possible 
> usage to some.
> 
> The specification doesn't define particular CDMs. I understand some
> believe this point to be a technicality, but generally what is and is
> not included in a specification is viewed as being of some modest
> import.
> 
> Browsers are free to supports CDMs that are free (in whatever sense is
> important to you). But for reasons that have nothing to do with EME,
> DRM systems that are acceptable to studios today are unlikely to be
> made available without cost (at least until various patents expire). I
> don't see how that fact has any bearing on whether EME should be
> specified or not - it remains true and affects everyone in the same
> way with or without EME.


I'm not sure we understood each other here. My simple question was/is:


If I want to use EME to restrict the usage of my content, will I have to 
rely on a 3rd party or is it technically possible for me to do it on my 
own ?


I think this question is quite simple, I have accepted in advance that 
perhaps things aren't yet sufficiently defined to reply to this.



> I notice that by the mere act of visiting your site you deem me to
> have agreed to some rather restrictive terms
[...]
> From your site:
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTE - By viewing the content of this website you agree to
> the following:
> 
>         * Copy is right
>         * Free speech and privacy are not up for debate
>         * Non Free software is evil
> 
[...]
> These are huge and far-reaching propositions.


 From reading other messages I realised that you did understand that this 
was a parody. So this whole discussion on my draconian terms that are 
comparably as restrictive as DRM is moot.



> That said, I do indeed think DRM is not reasonable. How could anyone 
> have the pretension to want to control how a person views their content 
> in their own personal space ?
> 
> It's not pretension if the user has been asked first whether they
> agree to some restrictions and they do agree.


I fail to see the relation between a user agreeing to having their usage 
of content controlled by the distributor and my opinion that wanting 
such control is pretenious.


I think what you want to say is that if the user agrees to accept DRM, 
then the user agrees to accept DRM. To that I would agree.




> Is it reasonable for me to want to implement a system that would have 
> deleted/edited the phrases you copy pasted from my site into your email 
> ?
> 
> If you wanted to make my use of an editor with that capability a
> condition of viewing your site, I don't see why you shouldn't be free
> to ask that of me. You created the content, you are free to decide how
> to license it. I may then decide whether or not agreeing to that
> restriction is a reasonably price for me to pay for access to the
> content.


I agree 100% to this. However, two things:


1. This would make me a very pretensious person in regards to my 
content.

2. The technologies I would use to do such a thing shouldn't be part of 
a standard that promotes openness. It could be implemented, it could be 
free or not free, it could even be a standard. But it shouldn't be part 
of the W3 standard.




>  Where should the control stop ?
> 
> You're free to propose any terms you choose (within the law). Nothing
> is being imposed on anyone here. It's a contract that requires both an
> offer and acceptance.


"within the law", this is a touchy subject as certain laws allow those 
who purchase media to make personal backup copies or to copy to another 
device (copying a CD to an mp3 player) so long as it's for personal 
non-sharing usage.  In certain cases the use of DRM may exceed it's 
legality, for example restricting a user to practice their rights.


This is all margin and padding talk, because I've said it many times, I 
don't care if you do DRM, DRM isn't new. I don't think it's ethical and 
I do think it's pretentious. I also do think that users should read the 
terms before accepting them.

It's actually what I consider a big issue, "users who click agree 
without reading a word", this does create situations where many users 
are legally binded to contracts which they haven't even read. This is 
going way off topic so I'll stop here.

 

> DRM goes far beyond reason as it treats the legitimate consumer as a 
> threat.
> 
> Do you also think that RFID tag detectors at the doors of stores treat
> legitimate shoppers as a threat ?


As noted by others, it is a false question. The RFID tag is removed from 
the product at the moment of purchase.


An adequate comparison would be a DVD that doesn't allow your DVD player 
to play the DVD unless it is connected to the Internet and has cleared 
authorisation using a DVD player specification standard that promotes 
openness. Also, the DVD can disable the pause/mute/fast_forward/etc 
functions of your DVD player and why not even be remotely controlled 
entirely while playing this DVD.



-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Sunday, 19 May 2013 12:03:43 UTC