RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Duncan Bayne wrote:
> 
> > "Stopping" this will
> > not stand a snowball's chance; the best you can do is provide a
> better
> > alternative.
> 
> This fact is the cause of the anger that myself and others are
> expressing on this list.

Perhaps I should be clearer here: stopping this technology is what stand's
the snowball's chance. You might stand a slim chance of halting this work at
the W3C, *but it won't stop the work*, something that has also been repeated
numerous times. 

FACT: The W3C has zero regulatory impact on how companies that use the
internet can and do use the internet. No company requires the permission of
the W3C to implement, or not implement, a DRM system. 

FACT: No browser is obligated or not obligated to implement a W3C standard.
Repeatedly, it has been stated, and quite clearly I might add, that the W3C
are not the internet police. EVERY SINGLE BROWSER out there today neither
supports *all* W3C standards, and each of those same browsers currently
support technologies that are not W3C standards.

The choice is not "this work shall continue" versus "work on this area will
cease to exist", it is instead the choice between "this work will happen
using W3C process, inside of the W3C" versus "this work will happen outside
of the W3C, and neener, neener, boop boop". This is the unvarnished truth,
and failing to accept that is (it appears to me) the source of much of your
frustration. 

Simply put, you cannot stop this work from happening, and without a viable
alternative you have not given the W3C an alternative solution to pursue nor
promote. Why should the W3C shun those who wish to work on *a* technical
solution, using W3C process, the ability to do so inside of the W3C, when
there is no emergent alternative within or even outside of the W3C, and work
on these efforts will happen with or without W3C "blessing"?  Once again,
stop worrying about the "reputation" of the W3C for a minute - answer the
hard questions.


 
> Perhaps we've noticed this issue too late; perhaps if we had been more
> active in the W3C *before* we heard of the EME proposal through the
> media, we might have had an opportunity to debate the more fundamental
> issues (such as, whether the W3C should be working on DRM at all).

1) THE W3C IS NOT WORKING ON A DRM SOLUTION! 
(Shouting most certainly intended. You can repeat this falsehood as often as
you wish, it will not magically make it true).

2) As Karl Dubost has previously pointed out, the topic of Digital Rights
Management has been discussed inside of the W3C since at least the beginning
of this century (early 2000's). I'm sorry that you were not aware of those
discussions until folks like Cory Dockrow decided he could lay blame for DRM
at the W3C. Specific to the work around HTML5, I filed an initial bug around
content protection requirements in 2010:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10902

To be crystal clear: I am not a huge *fan* of DRM, but as a pragmatist, I
accept that certain businesses need and want Content Protection on the web,
and I argued then, as I continue to do so today, that if *any* solution is
to emerge, the best that we can hope for is that it emerges within the W3C,
using W3C process, since all the other alternatives seem to be (to me) even
more flawed as choices. The one choice I refuse to acknowledge however is
that this "issue" will go away because some *want* it to go away - the world
doesn't work that way, sorry.


 
> In fact, here's a serious question about this: at what point would it
> have not been too late?
> 
> If I (or the EFF) had wanted to put our oar in and do some "stopping" -
> i.e., actually debate the fundamental issues rather than the
> implementation - when *could* we have acted?
> 
> Please forgive my relative ignorance of W3C processes, but it's not at
> all clear to me how that might have happened.  I'd certainly like to
> know, for next time if nothing else.

I don't want to appear glib, as this is in fact a serious and legitimate
question. 

Sadly, on this topic, I don't think there was ever a time. 

Netscape Navigator allowed for plug-ins before the W3C was really a valid
entity, and the first DRM-like solutions on the web were via plug-ins that
were VERY large black-boxes. (History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI) 

It is perhaps telling to note that it was 2 corporations, working together
with no outside involvement or feedback loop, that "birthed" NPAPI, and that
one of those companies (Adobe) also were one of the first to provide DRM to
the web via Flash and the Flash plug-in. 

Those who seek to drive this work away from the W3C today fail to understand
that this indeed remains an alternative solution: a couple of company CEOs
and CTOs will get together for an expensive lunch in Palo Alto or Mountain
View, and poof, 2 weeks later a "solution" will be launched - take it or
leave it. It has happened before, and it can certainly happen again. (insert
platitude here about failing to learn from history...)
 

 
> As it stands now, though, a bunch of concerned individuals and
> organisations are coming on board and saying: back up a moment - can we
> discuss whether or not the W3C should even be working on this?

And, for the record, the W3C has accepted this discussion as legitimate, and
further, have provided this forum for that discussion, with numerous people
from both within and outside of the W3C responding to the questions,
comments (slurs, accusations and defamations) that have surfaced. The
concerns are being heard, attempts at honest responses have been brought
forward, and the recommended best path has been *repeatedly* provided: come
up with something better. That apparently is not what you and others want to
hear however, you want to hear "Why yes, how stupid of the W3C, we will stop
this immediately to protect our honor". 

I simply think at this time the real problem is that you are failing to hear
the answer being provided.



> And we're being told: no, sorry, that ship has sailed ... Microsoft,
> Google, Apple and Netflix and the W3C CEO have already made the
> decision
> to forge ahead with DRM.  The important people have decided to paint
> the
> room, children - how about you choose the colour?

It is oh-so-easy to make this out as Microsoft, Google, Apple and Netflix as
the big evil conglomerates. Do you really think, for example, that
significant players such as Amazon, or Opera *aren't* following this
carefully? That they don't want a solution too? 

Or how about AT&T, the BBC, British Sky Broadcasting, British Telecom, Cable
Television Labs, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, Deutsche Telekom
AG, European Broadcasting Union (EBU-UER), Home Box Office, LG Electronics,
MovieLabs, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation), Nippon Telegraph &
Telephone Corp (NTT), Nokia Corporation, NTT DoCoMo, Samsung Electronics,
Sony Corporation, Telecom Italia SpA, Telefónica de España SAU, Tomo-Digi
Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Verizon Wireless, Vodafone, The Walt
Disney Company, Yahoo!, & Yandex?

That's a mighty long list of hardware vendors, telcos & other data carriers,
and premium content producers, all W3C members -
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List - and all with a vested interest in
the outcome of all of this, (and I've likely missed one or two other paid
members, and haven't even begun on non-members who likely still have an
interest, perhaps, say, Turner Broadcasting? In fact almost all of the 1st
and 2nd tier North American cable companies?)

I hate to burst anyone's bubble here, but these companies have involved
themselves in this consortium (read: paid membership) to find common
solutions (standards) to common problems. Our goal, as public observers and
commentators, is to seek to ensure that those solutions meet our common
goals as well: it is not our role however to tell the members what they can
and cannot work on. The public cannot dictate terms, nor can they demand
perfection.

AND EVEN IF IT WERE SO, work on these specific technologies would continue
at the same rate that they are emerging now. Painting this as a W3C
"problem" is going after the wrong problem, and at the wrong place.



> In other words, the community consultation is a bikeshedding exercise
> (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding), and those who are either
> later on the scene (if I'm being charitable) or lacking billions of
> dollars and the ear of the CEO (if I'm not) aren't being given an
> opportunity to change the overall course of events.
> 
> If people are angry, it's because they're disenfranchised.  Perhaps you
> & others should consider correcting that, instead of complaining when
> people express their anger on the list.

I can understand that sentiment, but it seems to me that it is born, in
part, on a failure to understand what the W3C is. It is (to my observation
and understanding) a standards organization: not the internet police, not a
government agency, and not a political cause. 

It is a consortium funded by its members, and it is chartered to work on the
technologies that are of interest and concern to its members. It has, as
part of its formal processes, a generous and open method of seeking public
feedback, and a goal and history of actively listening to that feedback and
addressing that feedback, but it is not an organization that can be molded
exclusively by the public, and certainly not by a vocal minority of the
public who have a specific cause célèbre. There is no public voting, no
elected officials, and the "high court" of the W3C is the Director, Sir Tim
Berners-Lee, who has already consulted the consortium's members, his
conscience, and his peers, and has ruled that work on EME is within the
scope of the HTML5 Working Group. 

The W3C encourages the general public to become involved in its activities
(and this I know first-hand, as it is how I am 'part' of the W3C today, as a
volunteer), and is has a long history of doing so. It provides an entire
framework for Community Groups (because the communities asked for that), and
it seriously listens to public feedback of all stripes and opinions. 

BUT, when I show up and volunteer to work on activities at the W3C, while I
can offer suggestions, I cannot dictate terms. The W3C has now repeatedly
stated that they are quite open to exploring any viable alternate solution
to the emergent proposal today, yet nobody has stepped forward to provide
one. I have repeatedly heard instead that "nobody will look at those
alternatives, because they won't meet the needs of Big Media"... well,
nobody said this was easy.

If you feel disenfranchised because the W3C does not appear prepared to be
accepting your arguments and halting this work, then I am sorry for that.
But at the same time, you have also chosen to not take up the suggestions
and recommendations of those within the W3C (Mr. Jaffe, Mr. Singer, and
others) on how to change the course of the current trajectory. For that, you
must assume your own responsibility: you've asked the questions, you've
received the honest answers, the next step is up to you, to take actions
that will have an effect (and continual debate on this list, or signing a
petition, are apparently not viable solutions). 

My suggestion? A little less talk, a little more action.

JF

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 03:06:19 UTC