Re: What is the "open web" ?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 6, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:

> Le jeu. 06/06/13, 10:12, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
>>>>>>>> Since the EME spec doesn't specify the CDMs, someone could certainly
>>>>>>>> create an open CDM (for whatever definition of open they prefer) and
>>>>>>>> EME would work with that.
>> […]
>> Your missing my point. You can implement EME under the well
>> established definition you refer to. And you can implement a CDM under
>> that definition too. There can be no doubt about those things.
>
> You wrote “someone could certainly create an open CDM” and you
> basically say there can be no doubt about such a thing as Free
> Software DRM.
>
> Allow me to doubt that.

I didn't use the phrase 'Free Software DRM'. I said that EME itself
(the API) and a CDM could be implemented as Free Software. I don't
think that CDM would meet most people's definition of DRM.

>
>> What there is doubt about is what content would be distributable using
>> such solutions, but this is not a technical or legal issue, only a
>> business decision.
>
> It is too easy to dismiss these doubts just because they are not
> strictly legal or technical. It does not have to be about business
> models, it just has to be reasonable common sense.
>
> If EME is designed for CDM and that the existence of
> non-proprietary CDM is entirely hypothetical, not real, because no
> one has a need for them; then it means EME is a specification that
> only addresses needs of proprietary software and that will
> effectively require users install proprietary software (or use
> proprietary platforms providing the effective part of the CDM).
>
>
>>> We even have legal tools (licenses) to clearly draw the line
>>> between what's open source/free software, and what is not.
>>>
>>>> You can certainly implement EME and
>>>> a CDM under whatever open source terms you choose.
>>>
>>> Can you really? You need to define what a CDM is then. Because if
>>> a CDM can be free software, that means the recipient of the CDM
>>> can modify the CDM and thus bypass the limitations set forth by
>>> the CDM
>>
>> Yes, that would be true of a free software CDM that performed
>> decryption and decoding itself. A CDM that made use of platform APIs
>> for decryption/decoding might be more difficult to bypass.
>>
>> Both could be useful.
>
> Platform APIs which would not be free software themselves...
>
>>>
>>> If the recipient of the CDM cannot get the source code and modify
>>> it, that means your CDM *is not* by any definition, Free Software
>>> or open source, regardless of which licenses we are talking about.
>>
>> Yes, this is clear.
>
>> […]
>>>>
>>>> The point is that whether a useful CDM can be built in open source is
>>>> clearly not a technical issue. It depends on the ingenuity of people
>>>> creating CDMs and the requirements of content producers.
>>>
>>> You need to demonstrate how CDM can be “built in open source”
>>> because the very usefulness of DRM lies in its secrecy,
>>> obfuscation and restriction of users', all of which are 100% at
>>> odds with Free Software.
>>
>> As has often been pointed pointed out, DRM does not make it impossible
>> for people to make copies of the content. Someone can always point a
>> camera at a TV screen, buy an HDPC ripper etc.
>
> Yes, but this is irrelevant to whether DRM can be Free Software.

I never said DRM could be Free Software.

>
>> The question is how difficult it is to obtain a copy, what form is
>> that copy in, what is the quality of the copy, are there A/V sync
>> problems etc.
>
> I do not think this is the question at all. What you're asking
> here is how effective DRM is at preventing copies. This is
> unrelated to the question how DRM can be Free Software (which is
> your argument from the beginning, which you need to demonstrate).

No, where did I say that ?

>
>> You'll no doubt note my use of equivocal language: maybe, might etc.
>> I'm sorry for this, but I don't have a crystal ball. I can't predict
>> how content protection requirements will evolve. As a technologist I
>> believe we should provide technical support for a variety of future
>> paths, lest we artificially restrict evolution which might otherwise
>> happen.
>
> Netflix is free to provide technical support for paths leading to
> restrictions of their own customers.
>
> I do not believe that the W3C should provide support for paths
> imposing proprietary software to Web users.

Again, nothing is 'imposed' on anyone. Everyone is completely free to
accept proprietary DRM components or not. Please explain why you think
something is being 'imposed', who is doing that and how ? I have no
idea how someone would go about imposing proprietary software on
anyone.

>
>> Finally, as noted above, on some platforms it may become possible to
>> implement a FOSS CDM that makes use of platform APIs. Of course this
>> will not be very interesting to you since such a thing is merely a
>> shim between EME API and very similar looking OS API and what lies
>> below the OS API may not be Free.
>
> Exactly. Which means, as I pointed out many times, EME will
> effectively requires users to install unfree software.

As I have also pointed out many times, it won't - indeed can't -
require them to do anything. My point also remains that there may be
Free Software CDMs that don't require proprietary OS components,
accepting that the nature and hence utility of those is unknown.

...Mark
>
> --
> Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org
> FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal
> FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/
>
> Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 13:57:32 UTC