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

On 6/9/2013 2:20 PM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> 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.

Likewise.

>
> 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 think this statement is a little strong.  Noone would say that a 
company that provides house alarms assumes that a significant portion of 
the public are likely to take part in criminal behavior. Rather, they 
would say that a significant portion of the public has a desire to 
protect their homes.

>
> 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.

Just for clarity, W3C has embraced the notion that content protection is 
a valid requirement.  We have not embraced the notion that denying fair 
use is a valid requirement.  To the extent that we can find a solution 
that provides content protection and also provides no roadblock to fair 
use - that would be ideal.

>
> 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.

I hope that continued dialog helps you regain the trust and respect.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua Gay
> Cambridge, MA
>

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 02:47:45 UTC