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

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2013/06/12 01:03, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> This discussion (for me) is within the scope of the W3 and not life
>>>
>> in general.
>>  >
>>  > If there is no other way to restrict content other than by
>> involving privacy concerns, should the W3C endorse it ?
>>  >
>>  It that's the question, taking in account W3C is an organism that try
>> to promote open web, definition that include users security and
>> privacity by itself and common sense, then definitely the answer is
>> "no".
>>
>
>
> You, I and others would of course say no. However Mark has been asking
> "us" to provide a better solution to avoid privacy concerns.
>
> The intention of my question is to out this insane notion that EME
> opponents should be responsible for finding an alternative solution to
> implement DRM that would satisfy everyone.


Emmanuel,

The W3C does not exist in a vacuum and it's reasonable to consider the
consequences of our decisions within W3C on the wider world. I have argued
that W3C working on EME will result in a better outcome for users than the
likely alternatives. There are three threads of argument against this:

1) That this is not true, W3C working on EME will result in a worse outcome
for users than the likely alternatives.
2) That EME is inconsistent with principles that are central to W3C. The
outcome for users is irrelevant because this is a matter of principle.
3) That the proposal retains some negative features of the other likely
outcomes i.e. that it is not "good enough".

I have not seen a clear articulation of (1), with the exception of one
detail which I shall address below.

(2) we have discussed at length without consensus and I maintain that there
are other areas of W3C work which exhibit some but not all of the features
of EME that are said to be inconsistent with principle.

For (3) it's reasonable - and not insane - to challenge those who say the
proposal is not good enough to make their own proposal that is better.
Also, arguing (3) is inconsistent with arguing that the work should be
stopped now at such an early stage: perhaps some of the negative features
can be addressed by actually working on them. It could be argued that W3C
EME is not a big enough improvement over the status quo to justify some
other cost. Those costs need to be spelled out to make this argument.
Further, this argument can be made only once we are further advanced in the
process and know better what W3C EME will be: it's not an argument for
stopping the work dead.

The one aspect of (1) which I accept is a concern is that the status quo -
based on NPAPI plugins - at least enables any browser to support any
plugin. There is an open EME bug for this interoperability issue. But we
also know that Flash and Silverlight - or plugins generally - are not a
long-term solution.

...Mark


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