Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:27:47PM -0700, John Foliot wrote:
> John C. Vernaleo wrote
> > 
> > I don't think anyone has suggested that stopping the EME proposal (or
> > whatever exactly it technically is at this point) will stop DRM on the
> > web.  That is an pretty serious mischaracterization of the positions of
> > the people who do not agree with it. 
> 
> "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has announced that it has filed a
> formal objection to the W3C's draft for EME (Encrypted Media Extensions), a
> standard being developed by the W3C's HTML working group to enable
> standardised DRM plugins for streamed media."
> -
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/EFF-formally-objects-to-W3C-DRM-propo
> sal-1873487.html
> 
> Outside of the technical falsehood being expressed here (one of the goals
> EME is seeking is to remove the need for plugins), the EFF continues to
> couple EME with DRM, despite the W3C expressly stating the contrary: 
> 
> "W3C is not developing a new DRM system, nor are we embracing DRM as an
> organization." - http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/03/drm_and_the_open_web.html 
> 

> They are, in effect, calling W3C management liars.
> 

Hi John (and everyone else on html-media-* )

I agree with the Chairs that it is far more appropriate to discuss this
in the CG ( Followups to  public-restrictedmedia@w3.org ? Without the
involuntary cc: list? ). 

Just for the record, though, I hope that it's clear that there is a
alternative interpretation for both of these statements: in the first,
we're re-stating the uncontroversial message that EME is intended to
facilitate external pluggable environments for usage control content
management systems, which generally fall under the description of DRM,
and that while we understand (and believe!) the W3C's statement, we
respectfully disagree about the consequences of including content
protection in the HTML WG charter. 

I really don't think anyone is lying here. It seems clear to me that the
proposers of EME at W3C have made a good faith effort to abstract the
interface away from being an implementation of DRM, and we also believe
that W3C management is making a sincere and thoughtful attempt to
address the concerns regarding DRM that many people have. We really
wouldn't get involved in the discussion if we didn't think that was the
case. I want to spend more time talking to those involved to better
understand the motivations -- and the definition of "DRM" and "protected
content"--  behind everyone's position, but I think the good faith
component at least is clear. 

In general, the best way to understand our position is the content of
our formal objection: https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg

I tried to draw out there the general case rather than concentrate on
the technical issues regarding EME so that rather than make short-term
tactical statement on EME (or a sweeping one on DRM or economic models),
W3C can now make a strategic determination about usage control systems
in general. I think that would have a chance of us avoiding such a
heated debate every time a proposal supporting external usage control
systems crops up at the W3C.

Best wishes,

d.

> 
> > Speaking largely for myself, I
> > don't
> > like the idea of the w3c endorsing such a think and I disapprove of DRM
> > on
> > a variety of grounds, but I don't believe stopping this proposal will
> > magically make DRM go away. 
> 
> This is NOT about the W3C "endorsing DRM", despite what the EFF propaganda
> might want you to believe; it is about where this technical effort is going
> to happen (because it WILL happen), and how much oversight and input average
> netizens can provide. 
> 
> It comes down to 2 choices: work on it in the open at the W3C, or have the
> work continue elsewhere or behind closed doors where we have no (or less)
> input on the outcome. There is no third option.
> 
> 
> > So I don't appreciate you suggesting such
> > ignorance or magical thinking on "our side" (and I also hate this seems
> > to
> > turn into and our side vs. their side argument).  I know that I have
> > not
> > suggested such things about you or anyone else who is in favor of EME.
> 
> I am not sure how much you have been following this discussion, but there
> does appear to be a very hard line between those who want to see Standards
> work continue to happen in the open at the W3C, and those who are
> philosophically opposed to Content Protection on the web. I didn't draw that
> line, but if I have to pick a side...
> 
> JF
> 

-- 
International Director, EFF | +1 415 436 9333 x150 | 815 Eddy Street, SF, CA 94109

Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:32:28 UTC