Re: Formal objections to Encrypted Media Extensions

I would suggest that if all Internet users were aware of and understood
these issues, the vast majority would vote the same as Devin.

Joe

On 12 September 2016 at 01:28, Devin Ulibarri <devin@devinulibarri.com>
wrote:

> On 09/08/2016 04:04 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> >> I would be super-happy is this discussion were revisited. I represent
> >> > other educators, my students, and my musician colleagues.
> >> >
> > ​I believe David was referring to the specific issue of a covenant for
> > security research, as proposed by the EFF, not the general issue of
> whether
> > W3C should publish EME.
>
> Mark, thank you for this clarification. I did misunderstand this.
>
> As for DRM in HTML web standards, my bottom line is that I cannot
> support any design that restrict what people can do on their
> computers--or files on their computers, or software running on their
> computers, or media people play on their computers--such as DRM.
>
> Richard Stallman calls DRM "Digital Restrictions Management",
> calling it what it means to users, since it restricts what users would
> otherwise be at liberty to do. I agree with this observation, because,
> from my perspective, DRM represents restrictions that are being imposed
> by others via design decisions and implementation--not rights being
> granted.
>
> >> > Can someone(s) please help me understand how EME will benefit the
> regular,
> >> > but socially-minded, web user such as myself?
> >> >
> > ​Very generally, before EME, *if* you wished to use a website that
> employs
> > DRM ​- such as Netflix - you would be asked to install a plugin - such as
> > Adobe Flash or Microsoft Silverlight. EME offers such sites the
> opportunity
> > to migrate to a different model, in which the DRM component is integrated
> > with their browser and is constrained in various ways defined by the
> > specification.
> >
> > EME is a technical refactoring of functionality which already existed on
> > the web and will facilitate the eventual deprecation of plugins
> altogether.
>
> I will agree that the deprecation of the proprietary plugins you name
> above is a good thing, however the issue of DRM still remains. (SIDE
> NOTE: If  __all publicly published versions__ of Flash and Silverlight
> were re-released under a free (libre) software license[1], and without
> any changes, I would no longer have reason to object to the plugins
> being proprietary.)
>
> [1] See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html for definition of
> "free/libre"
>
> > Personally, I don't consider such practical engineering work as
> > representing some kind of statement on the various political issues that
> > have been raised, but obviously some people do.
>
> Well, I would say that the decisions regarding the future of HTML
> standards are a matter of *policy* and since the Internet as we have it
> is designed for use by the *public*, that the decisions made here could
> be thought of as *public policy* decisions--important policy decisions
> that will affect the public at large.
>
> My vote is to leave DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) out of HTML
> standards entirely. I say this not representing any corporation or
> institution but as an individual member of the public.
>
> Thanks,
> Devin
>
> --
> Devin Ulibarri
> www.devinulibarri.com/Bio.html
>
>