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

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:51:45PM -0400, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> On 6/10/2013 6:53 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
> 
> Good framing.  Thanks.
> 
> >Jeff, & those in favour of the EME proposal:
> 
> 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).
> 
> W3C has (1) accepted the content protection requirement as a valid
> requirement for the HTML Working Group and (2) recognized that the
> EME draft proposal is currently the only proposal that the WG is
> developing - which led to the publication of the Working Draft.
> 
> >
> >In order to change *my* mind - that is, for me to start supporting the
> >EME proposal, you'd need to show either:
> >
> >  - a use case for EME that is not DRM, and which has demand from
> >  industry
> 
> One such "use case" is Open Source, breakable DRM.

I think it's important to put this idea to bed: the null case, the
clearkey proposal is just encrypted stream where the key is delivered
separately, which nobody has asked for beyond the spec, and which
alternative solutions are proposed without EME (see
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7011&to=7012 )

It would be a lot clearer in general if we described EME as a usage
control interface, because no-one involved in it has provided an
alternative use case for it that could not be reimplemented in a much
simpler way. We all understand that the use case for EME is usage
control of "protected content"; accepting that would allow us to
concentrate on both how it works technically, and the wider issues.

It's also worth pointing out that indicative rights control (such as
programmatically disabling the "Save as..." option on video) which
neither explicitly attempt to disable user access to content, nor
provide features that could be used for infringing purposes, are
equivalent to providing an open source usage-control. Such systems also
don't need EME, though they might need other changes in the media
element spec.

The requirements of the key delivery system for a CPM under EME are
entirely down to ensuring compliance and robustness, which a fully FLOSS
implementation cannot guarantee.

d.

> > >
> >... or ...
> >
> >  - 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.
> 
> >
> >What would those of us opposed to the EME proposal have to demonstrate
> >in order to change your mind - that is, in order for you to abandon
> >support for EME and start opposing it instead?
> 
> Again, W3C has not formally supported EME.  But in the spirit of
> your question...
> 
> (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.
> 
> or
> 
> (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.
> 
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
International Director, EFF | +1 415 436 9333 x150 | 815 Eddy Street, SF, CA 94109

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 03:03:19 UTC