RE: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

Joshua Gay wrote
> 
> that the purpose of EME is to deny a user access to data and therefore
> this goes against the fundamental mission of EME. 

It is my opinion that you have a fundamentally flawed view of the goal of
EME, based upon the following:

1) EME is an "open" API that any browser can implement to connect to a CDM -
it facilitates access to the "blackbox" function that is the CDM. Further,
it can in principle and practice connect to more than one CDM system, based
upon business rules and contractual arrangements. One of the other founding
principles of the W3C is to facilitate "commerce" over the internet as well,
and I posit that technology that assists in maintaining the ability to
implement contractual and business rules is, and should remain, in scope for
W3C technologies and standards.

2) While the digitized stream that "is" the entertainment media is at its
most basic "data" under the strictest of definitions, the goal is not to
deny access, but rather to impose restrictions on the usage of that content.
Hollywood movies are not "software", and in my mind there is no legal or
moral obligation for the W3C (or any other organization) to dictate how a
content owner should offer their commercial content for consumption. In an
open ecosystem, more than one model should be allowed to continue unimpeded
by philosophical differences.

When I purchase a ticket to go see a movie at my local theater, it does not
imply that I can go and see *all* the movies on show at the multi-plex
theater - there is an implied and in fact legal contract entered into there.
Sure, dishonest people can sneak from one showing to another, and may not
get caught, but that is what *dishonest* people can do - it doesn't mean
that its right (ditto "cracking" encrypted DVD/video content). Further, when
I purchase that ticket, it is for one showing, and is non-transferable. I
cannot then pass that ticket along to my neighbor, nor can I decide to see
the movie at a different time or day, because the date and time of the
showing is printed on the ticket (Q: is that immoral or wrong?). If, for
example, I must leave the theater before the movie is finished, I am not
obliged a refund, nor a second ticket to return to see the end of that
movie. These are realities on the ground today, and most reasonable people
both accept and understand that these are "the rules" when it comes to going
to see a movie.  

Why should the entertainment industry that is "Big Media" then all of a
sudden be expected to change their business model due to a change in
delivery methods (physical cinema versus on-line)? Nobody has been able to
address this question that I have seen in this extended conversation, and I
challenge you (as you have challenged Jeff) to answer these questions. Why
do anti-DRM proponents continue to call movies "software"? There is
something very disingenuous about that.

I respect the goals and aspirations of the free and open software ideals,
but I remain disconcerted that a singular view of "how the web should be"
remains at the corner-stone of all of the arguments against the work around
EME (and the larger topic of DRM). I must also state that the 'cause' you
wish to promote is not being helped by some of your more radical proponents,
who proudly brag about stealing movies from sites like Pirate Bay and
isoHunt, or stoop to the level of threatening physical violence on those who
disagree with your position
(http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2013/more-on-drm-in-html5/comment-page-1/#comm
ent-1508158) - I realize that you cannot control these people, but for those
that might be reading this, please, take this observation to heart. We need
to have this dialog and debate, but keep it civil and reasonable, and (in
another W3C founding principle) try to find some common ground and
consensus, and stop insisting that it must be *your* way or no way. 

I can accept that comments and concerns around implementation of securing
entertainment content from unauthorized distribution and modification has
problems, and that some of the goals of that business requirement may come
into direct conflict with the ideals of FOSS and Open technologies, but we
have as a goal at the W3C to figure out the technical issues, and not the
moral issues (even if those moral issues are globally important - and I do
not for one minute discount or discard the importance of those discussions).
Instead of saying "Can't" we should be asking "How?" - how can we meet the
legitimate business needs of content providers while still respecting the
ideals of the Open technology perspective?

Now, if the end goal of what you are arguing is that business has no role to
play in the shaping of the internet, and that those business ideals and
goals are totally rejected in your vision of the web, then say so and say so
clearly. But if you are prepared to compromise and accept that these content
owners have a real problem that needs solving, then we should collectively
roll up our sleeves and work on a solution that addresses both goals. That,
more than anything else I can think of, is truly the mission of the W3C:
collaboration, consensus, and community.

JF

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 23:11:55 UTC