Re: Oppose DRM ! Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Hi John,

Your messages on this thread are somewhat verging on overly rhetorical. While I don't think you have said anything beyond the pale in your messages so far, it's generally good to avoid making claims or even speculating about the motives of others. It makes for a better conversation if you let people state their own intentions (or ask them if it's unclear, and germane to the discussion).

Cheers,
Maciej


On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:48 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> John C. Vernaleo wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, John Foliot wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thus, I again ask that those who have objections to the proposed
>>> Encrypted Media Extension specification limit them to specific
>> technical
>>> problems with the current draft under discussion (and I note that
>> some
>>> useful dialog has emerged from, among others, Robert O'Callahan), or,
>>> barring that, take the use-case requirement and create an alternative
>>> solution which can be brought forward as an alternative Extension
>> Spec
>>> for consideration.
>>> 
>> 
>> Leaving aside the rest of your mail (which I'm sure someone else can
>> reply
>> to better than I), are you saying that we should not be allowed to
>> decide
>> if a proposal is appropriate in scope or material (or something else
>> similar) for the working group?  That seems to go against a lot of how
>> I
>> understood this to work.
> 
> My understanding of both this list, and the Subject Line of this entire
> thread, is that a request to publish the EME as a First Public Working Draft
> has been brought forward by members of this Working Group for consideration.
> There has been some support in favor, and some objections to doing so. 
> 
> It appears to me that the thrust of the objections for moving forward with
> publishing the First Draft are based more on philosophical grounds as
> opposed to technical grounds. Certain actors appear to be opposed to the
> work being done to address a business requirement and legitimate use-case,
> based upon their own personal philosophies with regard to "ownership" and
> copyright law, and the desire of some content creators to actually profit
> from the creation of their intellectual property. They make it appear that
> this effort will be hostile to the end user (when in fact, those who are
> seeking to find a solution are seeking one that is as user-friendly as they
> can make it, as they have a vested financial goal in doing so), and
> technically incompatible with existing software.
> 
> I believe that it should be out of scope for a technical committee and a
> standards body to favor one philosophical perspective versus the other:
> leave the politics of politics to the politicians - this is (should be) an
> engineering forum and an engineering discussion.
> 
> While my personal perspective tends to be very liberal (I support the ideals
> of Open Source software, I publish under Creative Commons licenses, etc.) I
> also recognize the rights of creators of "entertainment media" to both
> profit from their efforts, as well as seek means to protect the
> marketability of that content. I do not naively forget that there exists a
> multi-billion dollar global theft issue on the web today (Pirate Bay
> anyone?), and that if we do not come up with a technical solution to attempt
> to address that problem it will be legislated upon us, SOPA and PIPA
> not-withstanding: it's simple - create a solution or be handed one.
> 
> I am personally adverse to having the FOSS "one true god" discussion block
> progress on examining the technical merit of the proposed extension. Smart
> engineers, representing W3C members, have worked hard and in an open
> environment to produce the work now being considered for publication (and I
> note that this is a First Draft, not the Final Recommendation). We, as
> members of this Working Group, owe them at least the professional respect of
> examining and discussing their efforts free from moral condemnation or
> disdain: these engineers have jobs to do, and are doing so in good faith.
> You may be opposed to the end goal of that effort, but that should not be
> the focus of the current discussion.
> 
> So I will turn the question around to you: are you saying that because some
> W3C members have a commercial interest in seeing a standard emerge that
> addresses a specific and real use-case, that the W3C should reject that good
> faith effort on the grounds that it offends some individual members'
> philosophical stand? And do you believe that the W3C should be on either
> side of the question of whether commercial versus free content has a place
> on the web?  (I don't). 
> 
> Or do you believe that the W3C is the best place for engineers, representing
> numerous goals, perspectives and business requirements, can gather and work
> together to produce specifications for the web (in the open, and not behind
> closed doors) that they will then implement and share back to the larger
> community with no further claim on "ownership" of those specifications? (I
> do)
> 
> Do you believe that a small group of like-minded people, and a single
> arbitrator of "thumbs up, thumbs down" is the best we can do for the web? (I
> don't) 
> 
> Or do you believe that the diversity of voices, and needs, and the
> collective work to reach rough consensus on the *technology* from all
> stakeholders, is better for the web? (I do)
> 
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> JF
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 00:29:16 UTC