Re: Response from Director to formal objection "Turn off EME by default and activate only with express permission from user"

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 16:01 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:56 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 11, 2017, at 15:49 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> ​I mean, more explicitly, that Google could clearly gain advantage by having their browser pony up privacy-sensitive tracking information that would enhance their ad targeting and hence their ad sales. Yet users trust them not to do this in a user-hostile way. ​I don't see the situation is any different with DRM, except that the amount of money Google stand to make from DRM is probably insignificant compared to their ad revenue.
> >>
> > Not so. Thus interest in various ad-blockers, privacy-enhanced browsing, etc.
> >
>  
> "The bulk of Google’s $75 billion revenue in 2015 came from its proprietary advertising service, Google AdWords. Of that revenue, over 77% – or just over $52 billion – came from Google’s own websites.
> 
> Read more: The Business of Google (GOOG) | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020515/business-google.asp#ixzz4dz5ukeRu
> Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook”
> 
> You must be saying something other than what I understand; all indications I have are that Google does almost all it does in order to sell more advertising, including why they deliver media.
> 
> David, I would suggest you actually read the thread.

You could try reading what you wrote, you know, and staying within the bounds of civil discourse. 

Mark says that the amount of money they make from protected content is insignificant compared to their ad revenue: "the amount of money Google stand to make from DRM is probably insignificant compared to their ad revenue”.  You say “Not so”. I wonder what you mean by that, since all reports are that they make more than 90% of their revenue from ads. You accuse me of being unable to read, when in fact I am reading what you wrote, and asking you to clarify since the meaning of what you appeared to be writing is not in agreement with facts.  Maybe it’s tangential to the discussion, but, heck, you appeared to disagree with what Mark wrote.

> However, I am asking this Working Group to adopt, as per WebRTC, an 'off-by-default' setting for EME, which is clearly, as per Paul Cotton's previous take on this issue, *in scope.*

So, let’s work this idea through. I know what “off by default” means for a physical device like a camera, or a user setting. I am less sure what it can mean for an API.  APIs do not have on/off states.

The user visits a site, in their browser, that sells (access to) media content. They read the terms of service, they create an account. Perhaps they are asked to download a DRM module (and their permission is now needed for that). They buy some content, and they ask to play it. Now the browser is supposed to say — after all this — “Playing this content requires Javascript calls to the FritzBarFoo DRM module; are you sure you want to proceed?”. Is that what you are proposing?  If not, what?




David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 16:58:01 UTC