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

On 2013/06/12 17:18, Mark Watson wrote:
> 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 Watson,


I maintain what I said previously.

Your attempt to discredit DRM opponents and deviate the conversation 
when it is convenient for you betrays your manipulative intentions. It 
is typical behaviour when there are no arguments left and the questions 
at hand cannot be addressed directly. I would have prefered an honest "I 
don't know" or anything somewhat sincere.

Instead you responded with a long unrelated response to the very 
specific and simple question, which, in case you forgot, is:


   If there is no other way to restrict content other than by involving 
privacy concerns, should the W3C endorse it ?


Contrary to what you make it seem and regardless of my opinion on DRM 
within the vacuum of the W3C or in life in general, my question does not 
suggest that work on EME be stopped. It merely asks if the W3C should 
endorse something *if* it involves privacy concerns. I could not be more 
clear.


The W3C does not owe you or anyone or any business a standard for DRM. 
If it can be done without any negative effects to the Open Web and its 
users (privacy and security) then that would be great and I believe we 
both agree on that. In the meantime, it should be the duty of those who 
want such a thing to exist to provide ideas and solutions for such 
implementations, with or without any voluntary help from others.

So yes, it is insane and borderline manipulative to hold DRM opponents 
*responsible* for coming up with alternative solutions.


When *you* asked:
> how can we give the user the _option_ to _voluntarily_ accept that
> certain restrictions be applied to certain data without opening the
> door to the security and privacy concerns expressed above ?


I felt it was a very good question, so good that I wonder if making sure 
the user's privacy and security is not compromised should be a condicio 
sine qua non for EME to be considered W3C worthy.


Best regards,


-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 09:33:49 UTC