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

On Wednesday, Wed, 2013/07/03, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> On 7/3/2013 12:06 PM, cobaco wrote:
> > 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.

point 2 stands ignored?

> > 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.

wat you said above was : 

> 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.
 
this is a statement with no supporting reasoning

> > 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.

finally something concreet
HOWEVER....

The widespread existence of piracy shows that DRM does not in fact protect 
content, what it does do is:
- inconvenience users going through official channels
- enforce a technological gatekeeper control over which client 
implementations are allowed to interact with which content (see the point 2 
above that you skipped answering)

In other words the 'wanting to protect premium content' does not hold water 
as a reason for EME in particular or DRM ingeneral

(general purpose computers, are made to access, copy and manipulate digital 
information, trying to prevent that is trying to cripple the general purpose 
computer, it tends to not work)

> > 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.

Reaction to this point jeff? 

The current stance is contradictionary:
- either the acceptance of (technologically based) gatekeepers in the form 
of DRM as a requirement is faulty
- or the rejections of (legally based) gatekeepers in the form of royaltee-
requiring patents is.

They both cause the same issues for interoperability for non-gatekeeper-
blessed implementations.

> > 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.

again:
content protection is not access control, 
it's usage control 
those 2 categories are fundamentally different beasts

at present EME is quite clearly about usage control (that's why it allows 
locking the browser out of protected content completely)

> > AFAICT It's basically only Big Content that wants it, while everyone
> > else quite explicitly doesn't (as it makes their life more difficult)
> > 
> > How do you figure this translates to 'broad concencus that content
> > protection is needed'?

having clarified that content protection is not acces control but usage 
control, the question still stands
 
> > 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

the spec explicitly allows restricting use of content to specific hardware or 
software that's the anti-thesis of interoperability

> reducing cost

yes, it offloads part of the cost and effort to convince users
- from the party insisting on DRM locks (where it belongs) 
- to the W3C and browser developers
This is not a good thing, this is a problem.

> improving security and accessibility.

the spec explicitly allows for the CDM to be a black box with hardware 
access, that immediately invalidates any supposed 'improved security'

(it does provide for improved 3th party control of the users computer, 
content providers may see this as security, from the users point of view 
this is an active attack vector)

the spec explicitly allows a CDM to lock the browser completely out of the 
content, consequently any chance for the browser to provide accesibility is 
out of the window entirely

How specifically would the aproval of EME improve security or accesibility? 
I'm not seeing it, quite the contrary.

> > 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.

point 5 still stands 
 
> > 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.

Nothing above anwers that question, there's an (unexplained) contradiction:

You can't both want to avoid completely locked down devices 
and at the same time support a draft that explicitly introduces a path for 
complete lockdown. 
That's logically inconsistent.
--
Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 00:06:08 UTC