RE: W3C mock's users [via Restricted Media Community Group]

Duncan Bayne wrote:
> 
> First, a handful of rich and powerful companies with the ear of both
> the
> Director and CEO of the W3C decide they want DRM in HTML5.  So they
> implement an interop system for DRM called EME, and suggest that EME
> could become a W3C standard.

Because, you know, the web shouldn't belong to them as well. It's only the
"People's Web" right comrade?

> 
> The decision that this work is in scope is then made behind closed
> doors, without - as far as I can tell - any wider consultation.

The W3C is chartered such that the Director has final say. You have zero
proof that he did not consult with others, and your aspersions that Sir Tim
Berners-Lee is "for sale" borders on slander.

You might not like that this is how the W3C has been chartered, but the
charter is not, and has never been, secret. In fact, the entire W3c process
is pretty transparent, even if you feel you are disadvantaged somehow by the
charter.


> 
> Once that decision has been made, and the CEO briefed to use all the
> proper propaganda terms ('premium content' indeed), 'consultation'
> begins.  This is very limited in scope, intended solely to allow debate
> on the best way of implementing DRM interop in HTML5.
> 
> Any attempt to ask that work on EME be halted altogether is met with
> one or more of the following:
> 
>  - claims that EME is not DRM, despite its sole purpose being interop
>  with closed-source, proprietary DRM systems

Except of course when the API is used to 'hook' to open systems as well,
such as ClearKey. But let's not confuse the emotions with facts shall we?


> 
>  - claims that EME is 'more open' than alternatives

Do you have a better "Open" alternative that solves the problem statement
that EME is seeking to resolve? Arguments to "just do nothing" are not
productive. There is a problem that needs to be solved, whether or not it is
a problem for you. You can't just wish the problem away - it needs to be
solved, one way or another.


> 
>  - argument that certain advantages (standardisation of the interop
>  layer, better accessibility) are worth sacrificing the W3Cs Open Web
>  principles

The principle of "Openness" is not a binary principle, and does not
specifically mean that commercial interests do not have a place at the W3C.
Continued suggestions of such are just more FUD being spread by those with
their own political agenda.


> 
>  - requests for a better design (in other words, we don't acknowledge
>  your arguments in favour of stopping work altogether, but we'll listen
>  to ideas for a better design)

And AFAIK, that offer still stands.


> 
>  - statements that, as the work has been deemed in-scope by the
>  director, it's going to happen regardless

AND EVEN IF WERE DEEMED NOT IN SCOPE BY THE W3C, work in this arena would
continue - albeit without the benefits that working on web technologies
*inside* of the W3C brings. The continued imagination that stopping work on
EME at the W3C will stop Content Protection on the web remains ludicrous.


> 
>  - argument that, because some companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft) are
>  forging ahead with their own EME implementations anyway, it's better
> to  have that work standardised through the W3C

Because standardization is a bad thing? Or is it simply that you wish to
diminish the role that the W3C plays in Web Standards? That only "community
approved" standards should be in scope at the W3C, and that any standard
that is an affront to your personal sense of equity or fairness is somehow
not worthy of W3C interest? And who ultimately should decide? You?


> 
>  - claims that, despite the fact that the Internet is essentially built
>  upon Free Software, it's okay to flip the bird at that community and
>  embrace a standard that is inimical to Free Software

Actually, the web uses software, yes, but is and continues to be built
around *content* - all sorts of content: free content, paid for content,
encrypted content and non-encrypted content. The "web" is not "software" and
confusing the two is a very real problem. Deliberately confusing the two is
just more FUD.

The web also requires switches and cables/fiber-optic networks and routers
and an entire backbone of technology that is not, and never was free.
Somebody pays for that, and fortunes have been made and lost in that space
too.

For that matter, much of the web is also built using "paid-for" software:
numerous organizations use Windows servers instead of Unix servers, and
content is very often created using paid software such as Adobe's Creative
Suite. The fact that much of the content on the web is then offered to the
public as free (i.e. at no cost) is a good thing, but I bristle at the
thought that the web should be restricted to content that is *only* free. 

"Free" is a loaded term, and not the whole of what the web is, or should be.
Why should the W3C be limited to that sliver of the pie?



> The usual suspects - e.g. the EFF and the FSF - chime in with their
> opinions, either being unaware of or quixotically ignoring the fact
> that their protests will fall on deaf ears.

Perhaps because, naively, they fail to understand the above? That there is a
cost to everything? That even free stuff has a cost. That for better or
worse, the Free Market model, while not perfect, is the best to emerge to
date? 

I don't think their comments have fallen on deaf ears - their concerns and
opinions have been noted and are part of the larger discussion. I don't
believe however that they should be or have the final say in this or any
other discussion around the web. They have a political agenda, as does every
other commenter, and I for one wish to remain in control of my opinions, and
not hand them off to any one group (including, I might add, the W3C either).

I have repeatedly stated that personally I am not a huge fan of DRM, but I
also recognize the fact that there is a need for "something" that solves the
problem statement of the content owners, who for whatever reasons, do not
want to simply give away their digital content. If EME, or DRM, or
A-B-C-doe-ray-me is not the answer, what is? And why wouldn't we want some
of the best and brightest engineers to all gather in one place and work on
that problem, ensuring that both the content owners, AND the content
consumers, have a fair and equitable solution in place? And why do you
believe that the W3C cannot, or should not, be that place to gather and
solve this problem? 

JF

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 20:11:36 UTC