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

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2013/06/10 04:47, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> On 6/9/2013 2:20 PM, Joshua Gay wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> The house alarm is used to warn/protect against people who are not authorised to enter the home whereas DRM is used against identified and authorised users.
>
> EME/DRM is more comparable to an alarm designed to protect home owners against their own guests.

The perfect analogy is probably somewhere in between and is hardly
worth searching for. The point is that there are countless examples in
which security measures are used to hinder a minority of people,
including customers in many contexts, who want to attack a system or
business in some way. The desire of businesses to protect themselves
and use technical or other measures to do so is in no other context
branded as an assumption that a majority of customers are criminals.

Also, fears are certainly not allayed when those who claim to be
defending to fair use defend such actions as recording rented or
subscription content to play back after the rental or subscription
expires (IANAL but I'd appreciate being pointed to legal references
that support this being fair use) or (in another thread) brag about
their own use of pirated content. Indeed the defense of fair use is
undermined by such comments.


>
> [...]
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> I read here "The need for content protection outweighs fair use denial (and control over users)".

I didn't read that into Jeff's statement. The statement doesn't take a
position on how the two requirements should be balanced.

...Mark
>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>
>

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 15:26:17 UTC