- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:08:04 -0700
- To: "'Duncan Bayne'" <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>, "'cobaco'" <cobaco@freemen.be>, <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Duncan Bayne wrote: > > No-one here (to my knowledge) is arguing that companies should not be > free to work on DRM, or that customers should not be free to accept or > reject DRM systems by voting with their wallets. And I am pointing out that the W3C is a consortium of companies, academia and government - so you *are* arguing that companies should not be free to work on this technology, in a consortium that they are members of. Some W3C member companies are working on EME, (and I have provided a list of others whom I suspect are also interested in this technology) and you are arguing that they shouldn't, that they should go somewhere else, and not do that work in a consortium that they help fund. There is no logic there. > All we're arguing is that the W3C is not an appropriate place to > standardise DRM, or interfaces to it. But you've not adequately addressed why. You bring forth arguments about principle etc., while conveniently neglecting the fact that it is with equally high principles that these companies are working on this technology in public at the W3C. That engineers like Mark Watson endures countless attacks and hyperbole simply because he got the job at Netflix to work on this piece of engineering, yet he remains honest, helpful and open to the discussion (and alternatives to EME if anyone has them). They don't have to you know, they could lock themselves in a room and emerge with a solution that would be just as "bad" as you claim, but perhaps far worse, and with no means of public feedback. You argue that in the spirit of openness, the W3C should reject their own members desires to create a specification. You focus on *1* principle that the W3C strives to uphold, and/but happily reject others as somehow less important. You are arguing for the wrong outcome. Sadly, you have elevated the W3C to such a lofty place in your mind that they are doomed to disappoint some. I don't like pointing this out, because I truly do believe in the W3C and the work that they do - I donate hours each month volunteering at the W3C because of that - but I also understand which side of the bread the butter is on. I know many of the W3C staff, I have had the privilege and honor of working with many of them over the years, and they all aspire to high goals for the web. They are good people, working for the right outcomes, and they have *not* "Sold Out" to anything, or anyone, But Content Protection, DRM, call it what you want - that egg was scrambled long ago, and you cannot un-scramble an egg. So, instead let's try and make this into the best soufflé we can, because honestly, that is the choice we have, at least here at the W3C. If you *really* want to stop this technology, then that will take a political intervention elsewhere: write your elected officials and try and do something that way. But so far, the goal of using technology to enforce restricted distribution, copy protection and copyright is not illegal, and in my opinion those businesses that are in the consortium, who have a desire for a standardized solution, are perfectly within their right to do that work here. That's not the popular position, but it’s the honest one. > I also appreciate that we lost that argument before it began, and as > I've mentioned, this fact is the source of some anger and sadness > amongst non-member participants. You see it as an argument lost. Others (like myself) simply see it as a business requirement, one that *could* be poorly mishandled, and with a really horrible outcome. (These companies know the history too you know). So a collection of businesses came to the consortium, and working together collaboratively, and in the public eye, are trying very hard to not mess it up. You and others want to stop them from doing that, all the while failing to acknowledge what the W3C really is, and how it works. You "lost that argument" long before the W3C was born, and contrary to what you believe, I continue to argue it is the W3C that is your best bet in minimizing the fall out of that loss today. By understanding what the W3C is, what it does, how it operates, it is my hope that you can see how maybe, just maybe, we can get it as right as we're going to get it this time 'round, because the table is being set for the potential of that kind of outcome. The invitation has been extended, numerous times, to sit at that same table and have some real input on what is being discussed, but arguing that the table should not be, that it should not belong at the W3C - those are points that yes, I think you will never "win". JF
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 03:08:54 UTC