I too am opposed to HTML5 DRM

Hello Paul and fellow colleagues:

This might be a good time for you to provide us an email address 
for the Restricted Media Community Group.
Also, I am at a loss as to why you don't think this list is 
appropriate for discussions on whether or not
w3C has made an error about allowing DRM.

For the record I too believe that w3C has made an error, and 
believe that the last correspondent's suggestions on removing DRM 
are valid, and should be heard in this forum.  At issue is not 
whether or not W3C has allowed them, but whether or not they should 
be continue to be allowed, the consequences, and what IP rights do 
authors of creative works have in the absence of DRM from the w3C 
standard.

There is a lot more at stake than merely intellectual property.  If 
you have a DRM in place, potentially you can exclude people from 
the usage of the net, even if they are not financially liable.  It 
doesn't take much in the way of creative thinking to figure out how 
this can be deployd.  Given the fact of the environment we are in, 
with SOPA, PIPA, and a myriad of other new pieces of federal 
legislation, all geered toward state censorship, I am at a loss as 
to why the recording industry can't live with network control, and 
watermarking linked to remote destruct on command.

Those who seek protection of their works need to utilize network 
control, and not DRM as a method for protecting their works. As it 
stands, I am left with no other choice but to believe that DRM is 
being run through w3C for ulterior motives. I am starting to wonder 
whether or not the w3C is still a neutral scientific body, with a 
goal of protecting the public's interest through standards?  Or has 
the w3C been taken over by political interest with an agenda. If 
the w3c doesn't want fragmentation of the industry, it needs to be 
an inclusive body that listens to all.

Randal South



On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:01:00 -0700 "Paul Cotton" 
<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>The W3C has already ruled that EME is in scope for the HTML WG 
>[1].  See also the W3C CEO's blog post at [2].
>
>
>
>Please do NOT start email threads on this list arguing that EME or 
>DRM is out of scope for the HTML WG.  If you want to discuss such 
>matters please take them somewhere else and possibly to the 
>Restricted Media Community Group [3].
>
>
>
>The public-html-media@w3.org<mailto:public-html-media@w3.org> 
>email list is for "technical" discussions about the EME and MSE 
>specifications.
>
>
>/paulc
>
>HTML WG co-chair
>
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-
>admin/2013Feb/0122.html
>
>[2] 
>http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html
>
>[3] http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/
>
>Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>From: Árni Arent [mailto:arniarent@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:33 AM
>To: public-html-media@w3.org
>Subject: I'm opposed to HTML5 DRM
>
>Hi
>I'm a programmer by profession and I deal with DRM systems where I 
>work. My 6 years of experience in the IPTV field I am in has 
>taught me lessons about DRM, and why they're bad. I can not go 
>into details on my experiences, but there are big issues when it 
>comes to those DRM systems, their cost, service reliability, end 
>user experience etc. I could explain in further details my 
>experiences if that is needed, I will get permission for that.
>
>DRM affects the overall end-user experience, quality of the 
>service and is a black hole on resources.
>
>There are other ways to ensure content is delivered securely to 
>the right party, e.g. via HTTPS and via one-time use tickets, and 
>they could easily prevent piracy as much as DRM does, and they'd 
>do it for fraction of the cost that DRM costs. YouTube does this.
>At the end of the day, if someone really wants to pirate, he can 
>do so with or without stringent DRM controls. It only needs one 
>person to steal a movie and put it online, yet Hollywood has 
>resorted to thermonuclear warfare against the entire populous in 
>the attempt to squash this one annoying fly. And even if it is 
>squashed, another one pops up.
>DRM should be banished by law as "pollution" in the digital eco-
>sphere.
>
>I encourage you to abandon integration of DRM into W3C's Open Web 
>Standards, simply because they are not what the web should be 
>about. Adding protection for certain companies into the web 
>standard is an insult to not all the end users out there but all 
>the other companies that would like protection for their content. 
>Should photo stock companies get image DRM protection? What's 
>next?
>
>Anti-piracy should not be part of HTML5. HTML5 should not care 
>about DRM or piracy. HTML5 should be blind on these. DRM should be 
>none of web's problem, it's an placebo technology that serves no 
>purpose. Piracy is a social issue, and a content distribution 
>issue, and cannot be solved by an obscure standards extension that 
>will likely be ignored by some browser vendors, e.g. Mozilla, 
>effectively creating multiple web standards.
>Where I am sitting, DRM has proven to be a disastrous and 
>pointless exercise that has yielded no anti-piracy result. 
>Prolonging the DRM era is a huge mistake, don't contribute to it, 
>end it.
>
>Best regards
>
>
>--
>Kveðjur
>
>Árni Arent
>arniarent@gmail.com<mailto:arniarent@gmail.com>

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 23:17:15 UTC