W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2013

Re: [Blog Comment] Perspectives on Encrypted Media Extension Reaching First Public Working Draft

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 13:29:00 -0400
Message-ID: <518BDCDC.6020207@w3.org>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
CC: www-archive Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 5/9/2013 1:06 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Not sure why but I received a
>
>> Comments disabled
>> Comments on this blogs have been disabled.
> When commenting on
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html
>
>
> So here on www-archive@w3.org:
>
>
>> Principled arguments for content protection begin by pointing out that the Web should be capable of hosting all kinds of content and that it must be possible to compensate creative work. Without content protection, owners of premium video content - driven by both their economic goals and their responsibilities to others - will simply deprive the Open Web of key content.
> There is an issue in these two lines. It collapses a lot of contexts in many ways. It makes it hard to understand the point which is being made. Let me try to reduce to facts:
>
> * It is possible **today** to compensate people **making** (doers) creative work on the Web.
> * The Web can host all kinds of content.
> * It is possible to pay for content online. (not necessary in the most practical way, but possible)
> * Owners of content are not necessary the makers of creative work.
> * Owners of content today uses some proprietary technologies (such as Flash) and some of open Web technologies (such as HTTP) to deliver content.
>
> When you say:
>
> * **premium video**, do you mean "hollywood-type" movies, TV Programs, etc.? Basically, what is called the entertainment **industry**.
>
> My difficulty with the two sentences is that it mixed up the notion of "creative work" (work of artists in the collective mind) with "contents owners" of the entertainment industry. There are two separate issues and with different contexts at play if we talk about literature, music, cinema, object design (3d printing), etc.
>
> * Could you clarify who (industry, type of professions, areas of business) is pushing for it?

The Web and TV Interest Group has provided requirements that is leading 
to EME.

> * Could you clarify what you meant by "content owner", "creative work" and how "content protection mechanisms" help/do not help each of these categories?

I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but let me try an answer.

There are various stakeholders which I am calling content owners (could 
be movie studios, video distributors) who have content (e.g. movies) 
that they are distributing on the Web.  Often, today they are 
distributing them with fully proprietary solutions.  They are trying to 
move to more open systems such as HTML5.  As they do that, they are 
requesting an extension specification (EME) which allows them to 
interface to certain closed systems (CDMs) to achieve content protection.

> * Could you also venture on the social consequences as large of content protection mechanisms? (accessibility comes to mind, archival is another one, stability is another, etc. Helping or Making it worse.)

This is a great question and one which I've heard arguments on all sides 
of the debate.  You might consider moving that discussion to the 
restrictedmedia CG.  But some of the contradictory arguments that I have 
heard (e.g. on the first point of accessibility) include:

  * DRM is bad for accessibility because you can't get access to the
    bitstream
  * DRM is OK for accessibility because content owners are agreeable not
    to have the captions under DRM
  * DRM is good for accessibility.  Only with an overall system where
    content owners get sufficient revenue will they be willing and able
    to invest in good accessibility aids.


>
>
> Thanks.
>
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 17:29:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 17:29:06 UTC