- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:53:39 -0400
- To: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 6/10/2013 9:20 AM, Emmanuel Revah 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. I see your analogy. It would be like a museum or an auction house putting its most valuable holdings in a protected box, or a store putting tags on merchandise. In none of those cases do the people who place the restrictions believe that a significant portion of their guests are likely to take part in criminal behavior. > > > [...] > >>> 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 don't see how you read that. At the moment, W3C and its Director have not taken any position in terms of approval of the EME spec. Hypothetically, if the spec were approved, I don't know that approving a Common APIs to CDMs would fairly be called "content protection outweighs fair use denial". It is far more complicated than that slogan. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 00:53:52 UTC