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

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2013, at 2:33 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

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 ?


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought my answer to that was obvious from my previous
comments. I did not intend to be evasive (though I think your comments
above are a little excessive).

Of course, if there are necessarily privacy issues associated with
restricted media the W3C could play a great role in mitigating those, so
yes, the W3C should work on this aspect and the outcome will be better for
users as a result.

We have an open bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965

See, for example, my comment 15 - the comment thread there is a little
wide-ranging shall we say.

Should the W3C advance the specification to Recommendation if these issues
cannot be addressed? That depends on to whose satisfaction. If those issues
are not addressed to my satisfaction then I'd obviously vote no. Like
anything else we'll use the W3C process to decide if the issue has been
satisfactorily addressed.



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.


I hope the above is a clear answer.



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.


Actually I think the bar should be that there must be *positive* effects
for users for the W3C to be involved, compared to the likely alternatives.

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.


And indeed we are doing plenty if work, such as the privacy thread
mentioned.


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


I'm talking about those who reject the approach of non-user-modifiable
client components altogether, yet still argue that they should have access
to premium content services. I just don't know how that could be done. I'm
sorry. Maybe I am just not smart enough. What would be needed is is new
kind if content protection system that was acceptable to (at least some)
content providers. The request for proposals is reasonable and genuine. I
don't assume that because I cannot think of anything that no one else can.



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.


Well, we already have the open bug referenced above and this is called out
in the SOTD. This is another example if the benefit if doing this work in
W3C.

...Mark



Best regards,


--
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com