RE: Request for feedback on EME Use Cases

It appears you are requesting that keySystems or license servers communicate with content authors when authorizing media playback.  If so, your suggestion wouldn’t really involve issuing additional keys, but would instead add a third party reporting requirement to the EME specification.  I would expect this to have privacy and security considerations.  It would done not to assist in the playback of encrypted content, but to serve a different purpose.  Do I understand this correctly?

EME today facilitates key message exchanges between keySystems and license servers, but does not directly control the details of these messages.  The key messages are generally subject to content protection approaches that are keySystem specific.  Adding reporting requirements from keySystems to specific author registration services seems like a broad departure from this philosophy.  As Mark suggested, this is probably best decided upon by the keySystem providers themselves, and not in a W3C specification.

Jerry


From: Wayne Borean [mailto:wborean@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:53 PM
To: Mark Watson
Cc: Joe Steele; public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: Request for feedback on EME Use Cases


Why? You already have to have a key system in place. All this requires is expanding it from corporate use, to private use.

In simple terms, you'd be issuing a lot more keys.

Wayne


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure I follow exactly how such a scheme would work, but in the context of EME, any such scheme would be a feature of a keysystem, since it is the keysystem that makes the decision as to whether the content can be decrypted or not. We don't define keysystem features, though we do constrain them somewhat, in the EME specification. So it would seem the space is there, technically, for someone to implement your scheme if they chose to do so, but the problem is more of a market / political one that we are not in a position to solve in our work in W3C.

...Mark

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com<mailto:wborean@gmail.com>> wrote:

Joe,

I worked as a programmer, a long time ago. There is a way to implement my idea.

You'd have to issue a key to anyone who is on file with Collections Canada<http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html>, and the American equivalent, which would allow them to take down any infringing content, no matter who posted it. If the poster wished it back up, they would have to file suit in the courts over the rights.

The problem is, that unless a government agency, or a separate entity not affiliated with any of those companies was set up to run the system, it could be bypassed. Oh, and the costs of a key would have to be affordable for independents.

Wayne


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com<mailto:steele@adobe.com>> wrote:
Hi Wayne,

Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you are asking. The author control problem you are describing for individual creators is roughly the same problem that studios have today, where they are copyright holders for content being distributed via file-sharing networks without their consent.

This standard should make it easier in the long run for content to be distributed, but it does not provide the content owners any new controls over how their content is distributed. It provides an explicit mechanism for one type of control (encryption and key acquisition) and it allows for providing additional types of control (e.g. output protection). If an individual creator wanted to publish their content and protect it from infringing uses by any of the big companies you mention, they could leverage the protections this standard describes also.

It sounds like you would like to see a mechanism for individual authors to exercise additional control (TBD) over how content is distributed. If you have a mechanism to propose, I am sure the group would consider it. Or if you could describe the use case in more detail (especially how it differs from the general problem studios have) that might be useful.

Joe

On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com<mailto:wborean@gmail.com>> wrote:



Joe,

Yes, it has to do with what I said back in 2013. Sorry for not following up with it then, I've been having some health issues, and have been (up till two weeks ago) living on morphine. Yes, I was quite stoned. Legally too :)

Author Control is what the WIPO Internet Treaties<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/> are all about. Specifically I'm talking about Item 6, Part 1:


Article 6

Right of Distribution

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.

(2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1)<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P63_6990>applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorization of the author.5<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P65_7506>

Now I haven't been posting, but I have read a lot of the posts over the last year or so. I didn't see any section of the standard which allows the author to control distribution. Say I want to cut distribution - how do I do it?

There are a variety of reasons I'm bringing this up. I know a bunch of people who've had problems with the distributors. One found his music on iTunes, which he had not given permission for, and was unable to get Apple to remove it. His response, which was to release the music for free on his website, since he wasn't getting paid, was interesting, but probably futile because most people are used to buying from iTunes/Amazon/etc., and probably wouldn't normally visit his site.

This is just one example - there are a variety of others, some of which have lead to amazing court battles. From the artist's point of view, control is a huge issue, and from my current understanding of the standard, you are not addressing this. If someone steals your creation, you want to be able to take action to get it offline now, rather than five years and possibly millions of dollars in legal fees later.

I know this may not please a lot of people, but a lot of us consider Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Amazon, the RIAA members, the MPAA members, the big book companies, etc. to be the enemy in this. The standard does nothing to help us. In fact, it may make things worse

Wayne