RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Duncan Bayne wrote:
> 
>  DRM will live on for as
> long as people perceive a need for it.

Ergo, this work cannot (will not) cease to happen.


> > This is the unvarnished truth,
> > and failing to accept that is (it appears to me) the source of much
> > of your frustration.
> 
> Not in my case.  I'm 100% understanding of the fact that work on DRM
> (and probably EME as it's actually a good design) will go on outside
> the W3C. 

I am sure this kind of feedback is what the Working Group is actually
looking for. I'm glad you think the design is good.


> In my case, the value comes from the neener, neener, boop part:
> by
> refusing to work on DRM, the W3C will uphold its mission and
> principles.

There are a number of principles within the W3C's "Mission", including
seeking standards that foster inter-operability. "The W3C mission is to lead
the World Wide Web to its full potential."

Question: how does chasing this work outside of the W3C demonstrate
leadership? It strikes me as more like avoidance.

The W3C's vision also states that "Some people view the Web as a giant
repository of linked data while others as a giant set of services ... The
two views are complementary".  Premium content is not "linked data that all
should own", the delivery of streaming media is a service that has specific
control requirements attached to that. The W3c seems comfortable with that
idea.

Another principle is to work with businesses to facilitate commerce over the
internet, and to shepherd the creation of an internet that can be used by
all, including those businesses that need some form of content protection.
The W3C also state: "W3C recognizes that trust is a social phenomenon, but
technology design can foster trust and confidence. As more activity moves
on-line, it will become even more important to support complex interactions
among parties around the globe." Is not this work on EME part of a complex
interaction of commerce?

Why do you believe that these goals are not worthy of inclusion as well?
Because they run counter to a (your) specific vision of how the internet
must be? 

I for one reject that vision as but one vision: I respect the fact that
others might have a different vision, and they deserve the right to explore
that vision as well. I further reject the notion that the W3C must only
support one vision, the vision *you* advocate. The W3C proclaims "W3C's
vision for the Web involves participation, sharing knowledge, and thereby
building trust on a global scale."
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html) Yet here, you reject the
participation of Premium Content owners as antithesis of the W3C's Mission.
How so?



> As I've said before, those who want DRM can go and build it.  A
> DRM-specific industry consortium might be a reasonable starting point.

How does driving this work away from the W3C meet the principle of working
with business to facilitate commerce over the web? Chasing this work to yet
another organization - how does that eliminate fracturization of the web
ecosystem? How does that demonstrate leadership? What of the W3C's vision of
One Web? Of the mission of building trust and fostering participation? Are
these all just inconvenient barriers to "an Open Web"? Sorry, you haven't
convinced me.


> 
> > 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"?
> 
> Because principles are important.  The Open Web is important.  More
> important than any individual technology or company.

*ALL* principles are important, not just the ones you like. The W3C has a
number of principles as part of their vision, not just a single, "an Open
Web at any cost" vision.



> 
> > 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.
> 
> Neither do I, and neither do others with an interest in the Open Web.
> That's what makes us angry - and / or sad - in equal measure.

Wishing for a Utopian vision of the web is a grand exercise, but I sadly do
not believe it will ever arrive.

Meanwhile, I seek to work inside of the W3C to move the ball as close to
that ideal as we can. EME, and the proposed CDM solution today, reduces the
size of the footprint considerably - it is, from all appearances and
reports, significantly better than any other Content Protection solution
being deployed over the web today. Take that as a small victory, and build
on that.

This will never be a black or white scenario, the best you or I can ever
hope for is to lighten the shade of gray, which I believe working *inside*
of the W3C will help achieve.  As I've repeatedly said, I am less concerned
about the W3C's "reputation" as I am about the results that the W3C brings
forth, which today, by your own admission is "... actually a good design".

You can be angry, you can be sad, but if you want to actually do something
constructive about the problem, you need to be active.  Bring forth the
alternative solution that those who seek Content Protection desire, and do
so better than what is emerging today, and I for one will champion *that*
solution with as much gusto as I have contributed here. I do not believe
that Google, Microsoft and Netflix have the lock on "brilliance" nor the
definitive solution, but they are trying harder. Match that effort, exceed
that effort, and you will succeed. Rejecting that effort as a matter of
"principle"? That does not seem to me to be meeting with any kind of success
does it?

JF

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 18:23:12 UTC