- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:39:41 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/06/10 17:25, Mark Watson wrote: > Sent from my iPhone Sent from my [your ad here] > 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. That's your point, not *the* point. The point is to explain via a well known and simple analogy what DRM represents to us. The part that is wrong is you explaining that searching for analogies is not worth it. I think analogies are useful, they help give a simple yet clear perspective on what things are, may it be absolute or relative, opinion or fact. Maybe I don't agree with Jeff, but Jeff can easily understand why and where our opinions differ. > 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. I do believe that it is a fact, not an opinion, that DRM (especially with EME/CDMs) functions by asking a customer to trust the content provider and/or their 3rd party(ies) (CDMs) with privileged access to their computer. I don't see which part of this would be false, let me know. This situation only exists because the content provider cannot trust 100% of their customers. To address that the content provider asks the customer to trust them. In other words, because I can't trust you a bit I will need you to trust me a lot. Why should there even be an authoritarian relationship with the customer ? To bring things back to context: Why should the W3C take the side of the publishers by endorsing something that would place the client as an adversary and try to solve that by enabling a mechanism of user control. > 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. Please don't use things you've read in other threads from other people as an argument against my views on EME. This is low. >>>> 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. If EME is accepted then that's exactly what it would mean. -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 16:40:09 UTC