Re: Cory Doctorow: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards, says it's OK for your browser to say "I can't let you do that, Dave" [via Restricted Media Community Group]

On Oct 4, 2013, at 15:05 , Martin Kliehm <martin@kliehm.com> wrote:

> On 04.10.2013 23:21, David Singer wrote:
>> I think you need to be much more specific than "ultimate control", which is a bit sweeping.  The content owners (not all of whom live in Hollywood or even the USA) want to "increase friction" for copying. When content was, for example, on LPs, it was quite hard for people to make copies.  Now, it's very easy -- too easy, in their minds. They want (not unreasonably) people who enjoy the content that they created for sale, to pay for it.
> 
> I'm paying for it, but I don't want to be locked into one device or platform. I understand this is not in the interest of Apple, Google, or Microsoft, but it's in the interest of users.

There are various efforts that have tried to address the platform lock problem -- OMA (P)DCF, Sun OpenMediaCommons, DECE (Ultraviolet), Blu-ray's copy-permission scheme, and so on.

>>> - Open Source is also imperative so that *anybody* can create compatible players, not just a few big companies who own patented software.
>> 
>> If I can create a player, I can create a copier.  How do you avoid that?
> 
> With a business model that respects paying customers instead of treating them like criminals?

Sure, the vast majority of users are honest.  Providing electronic copies at a reasonable price is a way to help them be so.  Detecting who is NOT honest, before sale, however, is tricky, so alas, we all get the same treatment.

> But seriously, how do you avoid manufacturers implementing backdoors and spyware for surveillance on entire populations without working in the open?

Yikes, this is a completely different problem.  Most surveillance, as far as I know, happens on data in transit.

> How do you assure that players like VLC continue to work? How do you avoid stifling innovation building upon these techniques?

You contribute to them, and make them useful?

> 
>>> - DRM in HTML5 must respect the medium. A browser is moveable, not a static DVD player.
>> 
>> I don't follow.
> 
> If I purchase content, I expect to be able to view it anywhere, not just when I'm in my home country.

OK, so that's region lock, which is another problem.  Happily, it seems confined to shiny discs.  Now, problems with rights etc. (e.g. actors only granting use of the footage in certain countries or regions) mean that not all content is available for sale in all regions, but once sold, geo restrictions on use are rare (and I can't see why anyone would need them.)

>>> - DRM must comply with international treaties and international or national copyright laws. They are currently negotiated (e.g. TTIP) or under development, so a definition in a standard is in my opinion premature.
>> 
>> International copyright is for the most part pretty settled.
> 
> So why have there been a trillion of new trade-negotiations-with-acronyms (TNWA) in the past few years? Publishers continue to push the limits, content becomes unavailable for generations because it's out of print, just that Walt Disney's heirs or the remaining Beatles become richer.

I am not defending international copyright law or practice, just noting that it's mostly settled and entirely out of the W3C's remit.

> 
>>> - Feel free to add more.
>> 
>> I am astonished you don't mention linkability, fair use, the right to control your own artistic creations, the right to be remunerated for your creative work.
> 
> The latter would be part of your business model, and when you sold me a copy of, say, "1984", it's mine. I object anybody being able to delete it from my e-book folders.


I think Amazon (I assume you are referring to that incident) realized that that was a mistake.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 22:20:17 UTC