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

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:06 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> **
>
> 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)
>

Apparently, though, different publishers (of different kinds of content)
take different views on whether they require DRM to enable their business
model. They should be allowed to make up their own minds about this, since
it's their businesses on the line.


>
>
> 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.
>

But working on this in W3C - which is what we are discussing - will likely
improve interoperability.

>
>
> 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)
>

No, DRM is there on the web today in the form of plugins, so W3C working on
content protection is not "introducing" it.


>
>
> 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)
>

I think we should let users decide what they want to watch and not make
judgements about their decisions. The volume of data on the internet
consisting of content from the "traditional" producers dwarfs that from
individuals and smaller producers - at least in the US. That's not to say
that any particular kind of content isn't important. As I said, we
shouldn't be making judgements here.


>
>
> 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.
>

It would be better, though, if the content could be available on the web
through routes that don't involve copyright infringement, surely.


>
>
> 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?
>

Well, the idea of EME at least is to minimize the component that needs to
be "locked down" so that it contains only the functionality necessary for
its specific purpose and the rest of the application functionality is open.
This is an improvement on the existing plugins, which contain a lot of
other functionality and certainly better than native apps or custom devices
where everything is closed.

...Mark


>
>
> [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)
>