HTML5 and DRM - A Middle Path?

Hi all,

This mailing list seems to have adequately explored the two ends of the DRM spectrum.  One camp seems to feel that DRM is inherently bad for the Web and the other that it is clearly necessary.  This message proposes an approach that avoids either extreme and will hopefully provide the basis for an exploration of the middle ground.

Apologies in advance if some of this has already been discussed and I missed it.  I tried my best to review the relevant threads before sending this message.

My Philosophy:

The culture of many in the Web community leans rather heavily toward the freedom of information.  That is to be applauded and, in fact, has helped to keep the Web more free of  commercial or governmental influence than it otherwise would have been.  I both agree that information "wants to be free" and that the W3C should not bless via the Recommendation process any proposal that makes it easier for any organization, commercial or governmental, to further restrict information freedoms on the Web.  The law of unintended consequences applies.

That makes me sound like an advocate for the unfettered flow of information on the Web and I generally am.  However, I recognize aspects of the opposite argument:  The growth of the Web has been driven, since its earliest public days, by commercial interests.  We would not have the Internet of today were it not for ISPs selling access to the Internet, nor search engines trading search results for advertisement impressions.  Many desirable features of the Web, including the thriving commerce sector, require an economic model to operate.  In fact, I worked on changes to the Internet's Acceptable Use Policy to allow for commercial interests such as ISPs and the sale of goods in the early 1990s.

I personally like the Netflix service and use it regularly.  I do not expect that Netflix could continue to operate that useful service if I were able to store and replay any movie on my local disks and share them with others without paying the artists or service providers (as I could and would if DRM didn't exist).  I therefore support the need for *some forms of DRM in some contexts* because I do not see alternative economic models capable of allowing for those types of services without DRM.

A Middle Ground Proposal:

We should ask ourselves some questions that might allow some of us to move toward a centroidal  consensus:

- Would the Web be irreparably damaged by giving *some* flexibility to those operations already being performed on the Web in proprietary ways?

- Does DRM for some content types infer DRM for all content types?

The last one is the one I find most interesting.  Could we, for example, allow DRM specifically for streamed video formats while explicitly prohibiting (via "MUST NOT") the application of DRM to text or other content types?  I think that would have two effects:

1.  Netflix could pursue its current business model while being compliant with the standards, thus limiting the perceived need for proprietary extensions; and

2.  It would limit the unintended consequences of a general DRM escape hatch into which other organizations would choose to jump for their own (occasionally nefarious) purposes.

Obviously, the application of DRM should remain optional and disincentivized in the specification language.

Limiting the size of the hole in the standard would be analogous to US Supreme Court decisions that found on a very narrow aspect of a law while refusing to make broad philosophical statements.  They find that to be a safer approach to limiting unintended consequences.  I think we can learn from that.

If we really wanted to get carried away, we could stipulate that any organization wishing to use DRM for a pre-approved content type needed to register with a central authority, as is currently done with the IETF for content types.  However, I don't think that intentional slowing of the approval process would work well because it flies in the face of the natural speed of innovation and would tend to favor large, established organizations.  I throw this idea out only for the purpose of illustrating that other "middle ground" proposals are possible.

Let the flame war recommence.  It would be cool, though, if others were to propose other ways of meeting in the middle.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood