Re: walling of the web

On 6/28/2013 9:47 AM, cobaco wrote:
>
> On Friday, Fri, 2013/06/28, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > The public debate is taking place at the W3C Restricted Media Community
>
> > Group [1]. I encourage you to join the CG, read the postings, and
>
> > participate in the debate.
>
> >
>
> > Additional comments in-line.
>
> right, moving discussion over to that forum
>
> > cobaco wrote:
>
> > > I'm flabbergasted to read [1] that you said:
>
> > > 'Web technologies need to support DRM-protected media to reduce the
>
> > > risk of parts of the web being walled off'
>
> > For clarity, W3C has not at this stage supported DRM on the Web.
>
> Blatantly stating that DRM is necessary definately falls under the 
> heading of supporting DRM.
>

Well what I actually said is that we don't want the content (that is 
currently protected by DRM) severed from the Web.

> With the above quote you, the CEO of W3C, have personally and 
> explictly stated support for DRM.
>
> You're not disputing the quote so I'm assuming it's accurate.
>
> Given the above, stating that:
>
> 'w3c has not at this stage supported DRM on the web'
>
> is disingenuous at best, and frankly comes across as outright weaseling.
>
> Since you personally have explictly stated support for DRM
>
> You need to take responsibility for that statement and either publicly 
> retract it or publicly elucidate the reason for that support.
>
> (if it was a personal opinion instead of a statement as CEO of W3C 
> that did not come across in the article and would still require a 
> public statement of the W3C correcting that impression)
>
> > W3C recognizes that content needs to be protected and has asked the HTML
>
> > working group to develop solutions.
>
> 'protection by technological means' is the definition of a wall in the 
> used analogy.
>
> Consequently your stated reasoning for wanting EME makes no sense 
> whatsoever.
>
> Secondly:
>
> 'Content needs to be protected' is an unproven assumption, not a known 
> fact.
>
> The (open) web has, if anything, disproved that notion: there has 
> never been a period in history where more content was more widely 
> available, and that margin is getting wider every day.
>
> Looking at historical evidence the amount of available content seems:
>
> - directly related to the easy of (re)production, distribution and access
>
> (jumping hugely with the printing press, again with telecomunication ,and
>
> again with computing and the web)
>
> - inversely related to the amount of barriers in the way of 
> reproduction, distribution and access.
>
> Given that, why on earth would W3C through EME want to publicly 
> support new technological means for restricting reproduction, 
> distribution and access?
>

As I said above and in the blog post, there is content that we believe 
content owners will protect.  We accept that requirement.  I respect if 
you don't think we need to.  We are looking for the best solution to 
address that requirement.

> A plain filled with walled compounds is no longer an open space.
>
> I'd have thought that was self-evident. But apperently not.
>
> EME explictly facilitates the presence of walled compounds on the open 
> web.
>
> By doing so, it implicitly and unavoidably approves and supports those 
> walled compounds.
>
> How is that anything other then a semantic game redefining the idea of 
> what the open web is?
>
> > There is a draft specification (EME) that provides open interfaces 
> to DRM
>
> > systems that the working group is looking at.
>
> > To directly answer your question, I would like to have all content
>
> > accessible via web browsers in a consistent and interoperable way.
>
> All content ... or all open content?
>

All content.

> I you believe in an Open Web it's the open content that matters, 
> closed and gated content is irrelevant to that particular interaction 
> space.
>
> Closed and gated content is part of the dark web, not the open web.
>

Almost everyone accepts that access control is a valid requirement; 
although many don't accept DRM as an acceptable method to protect 
content.  But it happened long ago that content is protected on the web.

> as for interoperable, AFAIK it's not only possible but expected that 
> CDM controlled content will not automatically be accessible to every 
> user agent supporting the EME spec, but only to approved user agents. 
> That's pretty much the antithesis of interoperable IMO
>
> > I would not like important content to find itself in a parallel web that
>
> > is walled off from the real web.
>
> Declaring the walled web parts to be part of the 'real', i.e. open, 
> web is semantic fiddling it does not change the actual situation at all.
>
> (in sofar as it does it worsens the situation as this semantic 
> fiddling now allows the walled compounds to stamp 'open and standards 
> based' on their doors)
>
> > EME might be an accommodation that accomplishes that.
>
> EME doesn't remove any walls, it simply standarizes how to ask for 
> entry through the gate.
>
> A binary blob remains, it's now called an 'content decryption module' 
> instead of a 'Plugin' (flash and silverlight being the most used ones).
>
> But that doesn't change:
>
> - the security implications of being forced to use a binary black box
>
> - the practical and philosophical considerations of having to convince 
> the black box manufacturer to support your device/os/browser
>
> > > [1] 
> http://www.zdnet.com/reject-drm-and-you-risk-walling-off-parts-of-the-web-says-w3c-chief-7000017388/
>
> --
>
> Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
>