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

On 7/3/2013 12:06 PM, cobaco 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.
>

We have neither approved EME or CDMs in W3C.  We have said that the 
requirements that the Web and TV Interest Group have brought forward, 
that premium content needs to be protected is a valid requirement.  The 
Working Group is asked to look at solutions.  So far, EME is the only 
proposal that the WG has decided could meet those requirements and 
following our process they have published that Working Draft.

It is possible that if EME ends up being the WG proposal that the 
Director will approve EME and at that point it will become a W3C 
Recommendation.

> 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.
>

See above.

> 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"
>

We accepted the requirement because we understand that if organizations 
invest a great deal of money into creating premium content that it is 
sensible that they want to protect it.

> 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?
>

The broad agreement referred to not only "premium content" but also 
general access control.

> 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.
>

If you read through the threads on this list you will see the various 
reasons provided including improving interoperability, reducing cost, 
improving security and accessibility.

> 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?
>

See above.

> [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)
>