Re: What would we have to demonstrate to change your mind?

On 6/10/2013 8:18 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
> Jeff,
>
>> I don't think I have expressed support for the EME proposal per se.
>> Although I have often put in context why principles against EME
>> (openness) need to be balanced against principles in favor of EME
>> (rights of content owners to have content protection).
> It's clear from your mission page (
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html ) that openness is a core
> principle of the W3C.  Could you please tell me where on your site the
> 'rights of content owners to have content protection' are similarly
> spelled out?

It is correct that "Openness" is a more fundamental principle than 
"rights of content owners to have content protection".

I have said several times that W3C has well-defined principles and 
practices which defines what Openness means to W3C.  Included in these 
are standards free of patent encumbrances and standards that are 
implementable in open source.

I've also said several times that W3C has not embraced that openness 
means "implementable in every open source license".  That could be a new 
principle to be added, but is not a current principle.

>
>> One such "use case" is Open Source, breakable DRM.
> Noting that I specified "industry demand" as a criterion for such a use
> case, could you please enlighten the group as to which industry players
> are demanding such a solution?  I've certainly seen none.

Today, I don't see any, and hence today I don't accept you to change 
your mind based on this (which was your question to me).

>
>>>    - that CDM implementations would honour the W3C mission, that is,  be
>>>    "available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network
>>>    infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or
>>>    physical or mental ability."
>> I doubt that this can be addressed to your satisfaction. Presumably, CDM
>> implementations might offer their solution to work with any hardware or
>> software - but of course the developers of the hardware and software
>> platform would reject that offer.
> When you say 'your satisfaction' - the criteria I listed there are taken
> directly from the W3Cs own mission page.
>
> Therefore I take your statement to mean that you doubt that any
> significant* CDM implementation will satisfy the W3Cs mission.  This is
> why I'm so surprised that you & other W3C members haven't simply
> rejected the EME proposal out of hand.

I don't anticipate that we will standardize CDMs.  I agree that if we 
would standardize proprietary, patent encumbered CDMs it would not 
satisfy the statement you reference above.

>
>> (1) If someone provided a compelling reason why owners of content don't
>> have a valid requirement to protect their content; then once the
>> requirement were to disappear, the proposed solution (EME) would
>> disappear.
> Here, you have conflated two separate issues: the requirement that
> content owners have to protect their content, and whether or not the W3C
> should have any part in that.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

W3C has already looked at this requirement and decided that it is a 
valid requirement.  You might not like that, but that is something the 
Director has already decided.

You asked what it would take to change our mind and so naturally I 
responded that you could demonstrate that it is not a valid requirement.

>
>> (2) As I've said several times, if someone had a different technical
>> proposal that addresses the requirement, then the Working Group might
>> prefer that different technical proposal to EME.
> There are numerous extant technical solutions to the perceived
> requirement for DRM.  Flash and Silverlight are two, and there are many
> others, including for fairly niche content types (e.g. sheet music -
> which notably does not support GNU/Linux).
>
> The issue is whether the W3C should play any role in standardising such
> solutions.  I argue that to do so would be in violation of most of your
> stated mission.  Do you disagree?

You seem to be conflating your question with a debate about EME.

Your question was "what would it take to change our mind" which I 
answered above.

Now you are only going back to the previous question, which has been 
addressed numerous times on this thread already.  Starting with the blog 
posting which characterized competition between different principles.

>
> * i.e. supported by Big Media, Hollwoood, whatever name you choose
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 00:35:54 UTC