RE: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working Draft

Dear Salanieta,

It's just that I, for one, dispute much of Tim's judgments and the reasoning behind them.  He has not made many public comments, and has not engaged in explaining his position which makes it difficult, but here are some points I dispute:


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0322.html

Tim Berners-Lee: 'Let me broaden that to -- how can we make it better for the planet? This includes 'users' and also publishers.   Discussions of DRM often start off with a mindset of a a few locked down dominant publishers ripping off/being ripped off by individual consumers/citizens/criminals.

A more enlightened mindset is of everyone being producers and consumers.  If DRM is important to a market, can we open it up so that anyone can participate.

Remove the assumption that only one company holds the key to DRM playing on your machine.

Allow a garage band to set up the same provider-based system as Sony does? 

Nikos's statement "... EME [...] contradicts with Open Web principles" is rousing but doesn't say which principles those are nor how they are necessarily contradicted.

One principle of the open web is "anyone can publish", Can we design an EME system where that is true, and anyone can publish content using it?

Suppose we put that into the requirements spec.

For example, if there is a corner of your machine it is hard to program, which helps you keep track of what you have paid for and what you haven't, the private key it holds corresponds to a public key which any publisher can be given? Or something?'


1. I believe Tim is clearly discussing the development of a DRM system.  The W3C also claims that they are not embracing DRM and are not developing a DRM system.  Go figure?

2. Tim fails to recognize any contradiction between the EME and Open Web principles.

3. Tim notes a 'principle of the open web' that 'anyone can publish'.  The contemporary design of the web does allow anyone to publish, but they need to accept the technical reality of the web design which does not include DRM.  Perhaps Tim meant to say that anyone requiring DRM terms can publish on the web, or that more generally that anyone should be able to publish on the open web under any demanded terms?   I would dispute that this has been a 'principle of the open web' - the EME is the attempt to add DRM to the open web standards.  If every principle of the web could be waived by the demands of publishers then their would be no point in having principles!



http://www.w3.org/blog/2013/10/on-encrypted-video-and-the-open-web/

Tim Berners-Lee: 'The HTML Design Principles give helpful guidance on the priority of constituencies: "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementers over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words, costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementers; which should be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once."

So we put the user first, but different users have different preferences. Putting the user first doesn’t help us to satisfy users’ possibly incompatible wants: some Web users like to watch big-budget movies at home, some Web users like to experiment with code. The best solution will be one that satisfies all of them, and we’re still looking for that. If we can’t find that, we’re looking for the solutions that do least harm to these and other expressed wants from users, authors, implementers, and others in the ecosystem.'


4. I dispute Tim's technical interpretation of the 'priority of constituencies'.   Even users who 'like to watch big-budget movies at home' would like to be able to save the movie to re-watch, and to access the web without giving away control of their general purpose computer and the potential loss of security and privacy.  I consider DRM a tradeoff of user rights for access to content, in other words a tradeoff of rights under the 'priority of constituencies' and a sell out of the contemporary HTML Design Principles.

5. Tim raises the use case of 'some Web users like to watch big-budget movies at home'.  However the EME proponents have already conceded that the EME API is not designed to solved this used case.  Web users can watch big-budget movies at home on a separate DRM media player, keeping DRM out of the open web.  It appears more likely now the that EME is designed to solve the problem of allowing service providers to lock users into the service providers media player web apps.

6. Tim claims to 'put the user first'.  However the alternate IEME proposal is arguable much better for the user, and supports the use case of watching big-budget movies at home.  The EME proponents have basically conceded that the EME API is designed to lock users into using the service providers media player. Tim fails to note the real motives behind the EME API and these do not put the user first but rather put the service providers, in other works put Tim's customers first.


Tim: 'W3C is a place where people discuss possible technology. The HTML Working Group charter is about the scope of the discussion. W3C does not and cannot dictate what browsers or content distributors can do. By excluding this issue from discussion, we do not exclude it from anyone’s systems.'


7. From Tim's Twitter page 'w3.org, the place to agree on web standards.'.  I suggest that the W3C and Tim recommending the EME will have more meaning to the public than just some arbitrary outcome of a discussion and that this dispute can be resolved only by either the W3C stopping work on the EME or by the W3C significantly limiting its advertised activities and goals etc to be just a paid facilitator, publisher, and promoter of specifications.


Tim: 'The conversation has just started. The Restricted Media Community Group is one forum for discussing this. The www-tag@w3.org list is good for general Web architecture, and there is the HTML Working Group and a Web Copyright Community Group. And there are comments to Jeff's posting or this post though I may not be able to answer them all.'

8. Our dispute is with the advancement of the EME specification in the HTML Working Group.  If this were just a conversation that has 'just started' then there would be not need to work on the EME on a track to a recommended standard in the HTML Working Group
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Sep/0129.html

"The W3C Director approved the following charter for the HTML Working
Group, through June 2015:
  http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-charter.html

...

During Member review of the May charter, there were 5 Formal Objections:
...
 * One related to the inclusion of playback of protected content
   within the charter scope.

There were various concerns by the EFF and individuals about the charter including playback of protected content within its scope. While we remain sensitive to the issues raised related to DRM and usage control, the Director reconfirmed his earlier decision [1] that the ongoing work is in scope. For more discussion of the topic, see Jeff Jaffe's blog post [2].  The Director will continue to look at community feedback regarding drafts published by the HTML Working Group."

9. The W3C management have subsequently coceeded that DRM content protection is not included the charter and thus not in scope for the HTML WG, see:


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0149.html
Jeff Jaffe:

"I'm not aware that Tim is considering dropping content protection from the Charter.  As you say, we spent months discussing this with EFF and he decided to keep it in the charter.

DRM is not in the Charter.

Tim will consider EME as to whether it is a valid open solution to content protection at a later stage."

cheers
Fred


Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:41:57 +1200
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: paul.cotton@microsoft.com; public-html-admin@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat  Working Draft

Dear All,


I strongly object to this CfC and call on the Chairs to note that there was no consensus from the open web community.

Pasifika Nexus agrees
A far better approach has been proposed (IEME) that would offer much better security for users, and keep DRM out of the open web.

Pasifika Nexus agrees
The EME proponents have refused to detail the requirements and use cases for the EME API in a technical manner and have bluntly refused to engage in a process to explore the requirements and use cases.  This is contrary to the HTML WG processes which espouses designing specifications to meet requirements.

Pasifika Nexus supports this statement.
The Director of the W3C, Tim, has failed to engage in the discussions or explain alleged failings in his judgements, has refused to open the HTML WG to voting by the open web community (in stark contrast to his championing  'the web web want'[sic]), and has failed to review the formal objections in a timely manner.
Pasifika Nexus calls on the Director, Sir Tim Berners Lee to promptly publish in a clear manner what the "alleged failings are".

Pasifika Nexus would recommend that HTML WG should be made open to the wider community and the "silence by passivity" is no indication of support not equity and fairness as far as engaging a much wider community. Kindly note, that there are 27 countries and territories in the Pacific and this is not the web we want. There has to be some level of public consultation with the wider community to allow for feedback into the Working Group to ensure meaningful capturing of the impact and effect of certain technical specifications and decisions that would affect "Access". Care has to be taken to balance those with (commercial) interest in the matter from railroading discussions to rushing its passing without allowing for space for the global community like those in my region to participate. 
The W3C management have conceded that the HTML WG charter does not include DRM content protection, yet the EME API is clearly a component of a DRM system, and the W3C management have failed to put a stop to EME.
Pasifika Nexus supports this statement  and reiterates that EME API ic a component of the DRM. This is a threat to an open and free internet.

The EME specification still claims that feedback is welcomed, but the reality is that much of the open web community oppose it and their feedback is not welcomed by the HTML WG and the HTML WG considers those that oppose the EME to have a dispute with Tim and the W3C. 

Pasifika Nexus supports this statement with reservations. The contention is not with a person but with the manner in which the process is being facilitated.

 The HTML WG directs those objecting to the EME to Tim and the W3C to resolve their dispute.   Tim has not engaged in resolving this dispute, and has not suspended work on the EME while this dispute is being resolved, and allows the EME to advance.

Pasifika Nexus trusts that the W3C will place a caveat on current discussions to allow for resolutions to some of the objections to be reached before continuing with the activities of the Working Group.



On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:





I strongly object to this CfC and call on the Chairs to note that there was no consensus from the open web community.

A far better approach has been proposed (IEME) that would offer much better security for users, and keep DRM out of the open web.


The EME proponents have refused to detail the requirements and use cases for the EME API in a technical manner and have bluntly refused to engage in a process to explore the requirements and use cases.  This is contrary to the HTML WG processes which espouses designing specifications to meet requirements.


The Director of the W3C, Tim, has failed to engage in the discussions or explain alleged failings in his judgements, has refused to open the HTML WG to voting by the open web community (in stark contrast to his championing  'the web web want'[sic]), and has failed to review the formal objections in a timely manner.


The W3C management have conceded that the HTML WG charter does not include DRM content protection, yet the EME API is clearly a component of a DRM system, and the W3C management have failed to put a stop to EME.


The EME specification still claims that feedback is welcomed, but the reality is that much of the open web community oppose it and their feedback is not welcomed by the HTML WG and the HTML WG considers those that oppose the EME to have a dispute with Tim and the W3C.  The HTML WG directs those objecting to the EME to Tim and the W3C to resolve their dispute.   Tim has not engaged in resolving this dispute, and has not suspended work on the EME while this dispute is being resolved, and allows the EME to advance.


cheers
Fred

From: Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
To: public-html-admin@w3..org

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:44:21 +0000
Subject: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working  Draft









This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the following heartbeat [1] Working Draft of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME):

 

      
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-wd.html

 

Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive responses are encouraged.  If there are no objections by Tuesday February 11, this resolution will carry.

 

/paulc

HTML WG co-chair

 

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule 


 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329