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

On 6/8/2013 7:38 PM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 07:38 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> Second, I don't believe that the purpose of EME is to deny access to
>> data.  There are existing CDM schemes that manage (or restrict/deny)
>> access to data.  The purpose of EME is to enhance interoperability by
>> providing a common means to incorporate such schemes and data into a
>> user experience - when the user chooses to do so.
> I am still struggling to understand this statement.
>
> Are you saying that you believe that the kinds of the CDM schemes the
> authors of EME have in mind *will* be designed in such a way that a user
> will have access to the unencrypted data that resides on his or her
> computer?

No, I don't think that the current projected use cases will give the 
user access.  My point was simply that there are existing DRM schemes 
that manage/restrict/deny digital rights.  I don't think that the 
proposers'  "EME together with the CDM system" causes any greater denial 
of access.  The proposers are looking to enhance interoperability.

>
> Again, when I say "access", I'm not talking about legal rights with the
> data or the usefulness of the data format -- I literally mean the most
> basic access to data residing on a persons computer. For example a user
> might run it through a virus scanner or look at the data in a hex editor.
>
> All of the arguments in favor of EME that you have presented seem to
> hinge on this idea of "protected content",
> <http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html>. Am I
> wrong in my understanding -- do you believe that the use of the term
> "copy protection" by the proponents is not primarily about denying users
> access to the unencrypted data on their machines?

As I tried to explain in my blog, I believe that there are competing 
principles.

When you talk about the goals of the proponents of EME, I think it is 
fair to look at the motivation from their eyes.

I don't think that their primary goal is to deny users access to data.

Their primary goal is to distribute content  to users that are willing 
to pay for that content.

For their business model, they need content protection.

I've said numerous times that the Working Group should look at any 
proposal to achieve that goal.  At the moment, the only proposal that 
has gotten traction in the WG is EME, which assumes an underlying CDM.  
To your point, that could have the side-effect of denying users access 
to unencrypted data on their machines.  Saying that the only solution 
being considered has the result of denying users access, imho, is 
different than saying that the proponents are "primarily about denying 
users access".

>
> Josh
> PS. I apologize for the rude and disrespectful nature of my previous
> reply and hope you will look past my indiscretion.
>

Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 12:44:15 UTC