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

This discussion is now venturing into areas that would be better discussed somewhere else other than public-html-admin@w3.org<mailto:public-html-admin@w3.org> or public-html-media@w3.org<mailto:public-html-media@w3.org>.  A good venue for general DRM discussion is the Restricted Media Community Group [1].  See also [2].

/paulc
HTML WG co-chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: piranna@gmail.com [mailto:piranna@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:26 PM
To: Florian Bösch
Cc: Jeff Jaffe; public-html-admin@w3.org; Andreas Kuckartz; john@netpurgatory.com; Tim Berners-Lee; Sam Ruby; &lt,public-html-media@w3.org&gt,; John Foliot
Subject: Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)


Maybe it would be a good idea to read two articles published today on Barrapunto (spanish version of Slashdot) regarding why Spain is one of the highest countries on piracy. Short answer, there are no real "legal" alternatives, and the ones that there're there, they are dificult to use, without quality and content and fairly expensive, sometimes several times more expensive than going to a store a get a phisical copy that you own instead of a DRM-based streaming based license that you loose if you decide to sign out of their platform. In that situation where corporates give us more problems that solutions (and wasting time on EME and DRM instead finding and offering them), fairly better, easier and respectful for the user rights to use BitTorrent...

http://ciberderechos.barrapunto.com/ciberderechos/13/05/30/1321239.shtml
http://ciberderechos.barrapunto.com/ciberderechos/13/05/30/1311233.shtml

(sorry, links are in spanish... :-( Maybe you can use a web translator)
El 31/05/2013 00:07, "Florian Bösch" <pyalot@gmail.com<mailto:pyalot@gmail.com>> escribió:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca<mailto:john@foliot.ca>> wrote:
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
EME doesn't have any use in itself. It is one half of the DRM, the other half of which is CDMs.


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.
The work on CDMs is already behind closed doors. It won't be disclosed. It isn't of any use to anybody who isn't in the "club". You don't have any use of EME, since you already have the vendors and the content distributors in your pocket. That's all you ever need. It's not a question IF the work is being used to seggregate platforms and work is being conducted behind closed doors, inside walled gardens and to the detriment of diversity and open and equal access. The only question is why you would need EME to do it.