W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > September 2016

RE: Formal objections to Encrypted Media Extensions

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 19:54:31 +0000
To: Devin Ulibarri <devin@devinulibarri.com>
CC: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY4PR03MB2728C196541344BD20D8237FEAF90@CY4PR03MB2728.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

> ... please remove DRM from the W3C web standards.

Can you help me understand how your objection is any substantively different from the objection in ISSUE-305?


-----Original Message-----
From: Devin Ulibarri [mailto:devin@devinulibarri.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:44 PM
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: Formal objections to Encrypted Media Extensions

Dear Paul et al.

Please add the objection that I sent to the list earlier (8/19) and am copying below with some improvements. Please confirm once it has been added along with the other formal objections.

Also, what is the best way for stake holders outside of the immediate W3C community, as well as those working outside of any professional technology field, to communicate their ideas and vision for the future of HTML?

What you decide hear affects many, many people so I think communication with a broad array of stake holders is important. Thank you!

***Here is my formal objection to EME in HTML5 to W3C from 8/19 with some edits for clarification in its point:***

My name is Devin Ulibarri and I am a music teacher. I am the chair of the guitar department for the prep school and continuing education at the New England Conservatory as well as an avid and published researcher into how we can "educate better" (to sum things up in short--please see my website, http://devinulibarri.com for links to my research).

As an active performing musician and educator, I have a vested interest in electronic media, its distribution, and its preservation. I just want to let others know that I oppose DRM of any kind--especially in web standards such as "EME" (Electronic Media Extensions), which I understand is a base for connecting the browser to a DRM module that would be elsewhere in the system.  (Thus, for practical purposes, it is the way to put DRM in the browser). I wrote an in-depth rationale as to why DRM is of concern to musicians and music educators in the following article, published earlier this year:


Of particular concern is how DRM blocks the community's (e.g. teachers, students, parents, studying performers) ability to use media under the safe harbor of Fair Use.

[[[ On this note, I cannot support any technological "remedies" that attempt to distinguish Fair Use from other use because it could not be done anonymously--it would be an invasion of privacy. ]]]

And of even greater concern to me is the criminalization of DRM circumvention, which is why I fully support the EFF's recent lawsuit detailed here:


I found this argument from the cited article particularly compelling:
> This ban applies even where people want to make noninfringing fair
uses of the materials they are accessing.

I implore you to reverse actions taken to implement DRM into web standards. For the sake of music and for the sake of education, please remove DRM from the W3C web standards.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on EME and DRM in
HTML5 as an Internet stakeholder, researcher, professional musician, and educator.

Thank you,
Devin Ulibarri

On 09/06/2016 02:26 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> Since these formal objections:
> a)      cannot be satisfied without making “substantive changes” [1] to
> the EME specification or halting work on the specification entirely, 
> and/or
> b)     are identical to previous formal objections that the Director has
> chosen not to sustain, and/or
> c)      there is no consensus within the HME WG for the required changes
> especially this late in the EME specification development,
> in my role as HME WG Chair I am ruling that these issues should be 
> closed with no action for EME V1.

It sounds like the changes would be inconvenient. However, that does not justify ignoring the points raised by these stakeholders.

> Each of these Formal Objections will be added to the summary page of 
> formal objections [1] and will be presented to the Director when he 
> reviews a request to progress EME to Proposed Recommendation status.

I hope these are made public, for the general public to read and review as well. Maybe we could ask the public what they want for the future of the web?

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2016 19:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 September 2016 19:55:12 UTC