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

Dear Jeff,

This will be my last message to the public-restrictedmedia mailing list,
so I just wanted to start off by saying thank you for being so involved,
patient, and responsive.

On 06/09/2013 08:44 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
> For their business model, they need content protection.
>

While I'm not sure that there is enough evidence to say that this is
true one way or another, I can see that a good number of W3C members
believe that this is the case. Some of those members are in the business
of leasing multimedia and others are in the business of selling DRM
technologies. Whether they are in the business of selling DRM systems or
in the business of leasing multimedia or distributing it. (Even movie
houses now have DRM projectors and must pay per showing and play it at a
precise time
<http://astortheatreblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/what-happened-last-night/>).

But, I think it is important that the W3C take a close look at this
business model and decide if it wants to support it. Or, perhaps more
importantly, I think its important that we look at the underlying
assumptions behind the business model we are talking about. If this
business model is based on certain assumptions, then the W3C is
therefore helping to reinforce those assumptions by acting on them.

So, what are those assumptions the W3C is helping to reinforce right
now? And, what are the implications. As far as I can tell based upon
Jeff's arguments in his blog post, there are two primary reasons we have
to assume a need for copy restrictions:

* web users are going to share copies of stuff they download
* web users might save and reply things after a rental or lease has expired.

So, let's look at this a little closer what these assumptions are and
what it entails:

1. Copyright violations (sharing, etc) are a threat to the model

One reason the business model needs copy restrictions (aka content
protection) is because a significant enough number of users will violate
the copyright on the work. This means a lot of people (who otherwise
would pay) aren't paying for a work.

In the United States and in many other countries with strong democratic
traditions, there are powerful laws and justice systems to enforce those
laws around copyright. When violating those laws, a person is taking
part in criminal behaviour.

So, when the W3C does work that is to support a business model like
this, they are also giving support to the assumption that a significant
portion of the public are likely to take part in criminal behaviour.

I don't think the W3C should care to help this business model because I
don't think it should hold and further the premise that a very
significant portion of web users are criminals.

2. Preventing fair use is an important part of the business model

A second reason copy restriction is needed in this business model is
because it relies-upon preventing certain kinds of uses of a work that
aren't copyright violations, such as playing back a work multiple times
past a specific date. The reason such uses are not copyright violations
is because copyright law is balanced by the idea of fair use or fair
dealings.

The right to fair use in the United States comes from the Constitution
and it is one of the important ways that Congress balances the granting
of exclusive rights and protections for copyright holders with the
freedom, liberty, and ultimate purpose of copyright law. That is, both
copyright and fair use are intended to "promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts".

I don't think that the W3C should help further or put its efforts toward
helping a business model that is intent upon denying fair use, because I
believe it is bad for individuals and it is bad for helping to promote
the progress of science and useful arts.

3. But its the choice of the people not the media distributors

Lastly, there is a temptation to say that it is the choice of the people
if they want to engage this business model. That if users don't like it,
then they simply won't engage in it, and won't download CDMs and pay for
encrypted media.

And, on that point you may be right. I hope that you would reject
working on restricted media because it is bad for society, but, if you
don't and you simply let the people choose, I still think that this
implies that the W3C should withdraw EME and stop work on restricted
media. In the very least, the W3C should declare a moratorium on all
restricted media related work.

Simply put, I don't think this is an area that the W3C needs to be a
leader.

The 2012 Summer Olympics made it clear that the eyes of the world are
not simply upon the Web itself, but that the people of the world are
willing to honour and respect the creators and stewards of the World
Wide Web.

This respect translates directly into trust. The world trusts the W3C.

By publishing blogs posts that present the arguments behind this
business model and by engaging in the work of EME and helping to "solve"
these problems, you are helping to create and influence a business model
and you are giving legitimacy to the assumptions that underlie this
business model. If you want to know what people want, then give them
time to decide. Watch and wait but don't put legitimacy and strength
behind an untested business model since that will only help that
business model succeed.

The result of a moratorium will be immediate. Companies like Netflix
won't be able to further their PR campaign saying that their DRM
platform will be on HTML5 (and other such nonsense). And, while you
might lose the support of one or two major Hollywood companies, you will
regain the trust and respect of all of these organizations that fight
for the public interest -- organizations that not only fight for the
public but have the tremendous trust and support of the public.

I personally would love to regain my trust and respect for the W3C.

Sincerely,

Joshua Gay
Cambridge, MA

Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 18:20:32 UTC