Invalid acceptance of DRM requirement (was Re: walling of the web)

On Monday, Mon, 2013/07/01, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> The reasons why the Director accepted the requirement are outlined in my
> blog post on this subject.  I understand that many in the Free Software
> community do not view this as valid.  So on this point apparently we
> will disagree.

that blog post would be [1] if I'm reading the right thing?

right, starting from that post....

1) "Different publishers use the Web differently, some choosing to make 
content available free of charge, others preferring to control access."

access control is determining _who_ gets to see the page, 
usage control is limiting _how_ they can see it.

EME and CDM's are about usage control, not access control.

The problem is not with publishers charging for access (that does not need 
DRM, see for instance the New York Times or Washington Post paywall)

The problem is with their demand to control which devices/software can and 
cannot be used to access the 'protected' content, i.e. with their demand to 
control _our_ machines and software.

2) "The key objective [of W3C] is to maximize interoperability and openness
The key objective is to maximize interoperability and openness - values that 
have served us well"

How do you figure DRM squares with that?

DRM limits interoperability to 'authorised' devices/software, and 
deliberately closes it to everyone else. 

This introduces a gatekeeper for clientside development where there was none 
before. (The historical parallel is Ma Bell deciding which machines you 
where allowed to connect to the telephone wire inside your house, it was 
anti-social hubris then, it's still anti-social hubris now)

Note that DRM poses the exact same problems as non-royalty free patents. 
For DRM the empowering factor is technical and not legal, but the result in 
both cases is a gatekeeper that gets to decide which implementations are 
blessed/allowed for actual use. 

Gatekeeper control is not compatible with the open web (hence W3C's royalty 
free requirement at [4])

The issues of FLOSS with implementing DRM are simply the most obvious 
consequence of that gatekeeper control. They're not the actual root issue.

3) "Once a Working Group has been chartered with a particular scope"

What's missing is the reasoning that establishes DRM as a valid charter.

Both your post and the director's mail you link to [2] basically boil down 
to: "this was requested bij the Web and TV Interest Group and we accepted 
that without further justification" 

Why is gatekeeper control over implementations of a standard acceptable to 
the W3C when done through technologic means (CDM's) and not when done 
through legal means (patents)?

This is inconsistent and contradictory.

3) "despite broad agreement that some form of content protection is needed 
for the Web"

What makes you think there is broad agreement that some form of content 
protection is needed? 

AFAICT It's basically only Big Content that wants it, while everyone else 
quite explicitly doesn't (as it makes their life more difficult)

The available facts quite clearly show that there is a never before seen 
wealth of published content in the absence of those 'protections'. 

The amount of content produced collectively by individuals dwarfs the 
content of the traditional gatekeepers (yes most of it is crap, but so is 
the umpteenth remake of batman, yet another B-movie, or another cookie 
cutter popstar that can't sing)

How do you figure this translates to 'broad concencus that content protection 
is needed'? 

4) "he W3C Director has established [2] that work on content protection for 
the Web is in scope for the HTML Working Group."

That linked mail has a blatant dictorial declaration that 'this is in scope 
of the working group'. 

The reasoning behind that declaration is completely missing. The opposition 
on the other hand has stated numerous reasons.

As such it doesn't establish anything about DRM being a valid scope. 
It simply opens W3C to charges of being bought (or otherwise corrupted).

5) "Without content protection, owners of premium video content - driven by 
both their economic goals and their responsibilities to others - will simply 
deprive the Open Web of key content. Therefore, while the actual DRM schemes 
are clearly not open, the Open Web must accommodate them as best possible"

I've already pointed out that Big Content is not in a position to 'deprive 
the open web of key content'. 
Piracy is a fact of life on the Internet, that content is available with or 
without their cooperation. 

In point of fact a lot of content is _only_ available via piracy to much of 
the population (due to region locks on official big content sites, due to bad 
technical implemenations excluding alternative platforms, or due to complete 
non-availability of older/less popular content through official channels)

Therefore the point that 'the open web must accomodate them' is quite 
obviously untrue: the open web is doing just fine without that accomodation, 
there's no reason I know of to believe that will magically change. 

Since the required accomodaton requires accepting DRM (and thus accepting 
gatekeeper control of clientside development), W3C should tell big content 
to go take a hike. 

6) "A situation where premium content is relegated to applications 
inaccessible to the Open Web or completely locked down devices would be far 
worse for all."

Given that the stated purpose of DRM is to lock down devices/software, how 
do you square that with your support for DRM? 

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html
[3] https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/nl/statistics.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-RF
--
Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)