- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:58:20 -0700
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>, Craig Smithpeters <Craig.Smithpeters@cox.com>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+c77J8vmvaamH+6X-sQZAMCsX0MB7CgdhYUMSSwFxebLA@mail.gmail.com>
Do you believe that the use of DRM/CP intentionally discriminates against accessibility features differently that non-accessibility features? If not, then why is the possible impact on accessibility features being singled out in this discussion? >From the perspective of those who employ DRM/CP, there is no discrimination. Content is content regardless of the presence or absence of accessibility features. The only discrimination intended by DRM/CP is against unauthorized use. I am not aware of any case where the use of DRM/CP authorizes use of non-accessibility features while withholding authorization of accessibility features. However, if you or others are aware of such a case, I would be interested to learn about it. I would note that, from the perspective of commercial video providers, there are multiple external requirements placed on their operating practice, including: - ensuring that the use of certain high value content is effectively restricted to authorized users according to external licensing obligations placed on that content; - ensuring that accessibility features, if present in such content, are passed to and made available to authorized users under any legal and licensing requirements that apply; While it is theoretically possible that DRM/CP features *could* be used to single out and disable accessibility features (as discussed by Joe Clark in your reference below), taking such action would be contrary to the above requirements that apply to commercial video providers. In practice, the application of DRM is applied to the entire content resource, independently of its constituent parts. I would also note that, because HTML5's text track facility supports the use of out-of-band subtitle and caption tracks, then those tracks may be delivered and used without DRM/CP while the related video/audio resource itself is subject to DRM/CP. Thus HTML5 itself offers a way to work around the case where accessibility features are missing or, if present, disabled due to lack of authorization for the media resource as a whole. On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis < bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > The purpose of DRM/CP is to provide a > > mechanism to ensure that access to content is authorized, and not > whether or > > not it is "accessible" in the sense of supporting impaired users. > > Regardless as to whether Ian's ethical analogy between access to > people with disabilities and fair use is valid, it's worth remembering > that DRM often goes hand-in-hand with a reduction in real-world > accessibility. Please see for example: > > * > http://www.ala.org/ala//aboutala/offices/oitp/emailtutorials/accessibilitya/10.cfm > * > http://nfb.org/librarian-congress-says-blind-have-right-access-e-books > * http://joeclark.org/access/resources/DRM.html > > -- > Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis >
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 19:59:08 UTC