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

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> > It's
> > not
> > an argument against a capability to say that there exists hardware or
> > software than cannot support it. I can point to such hardware/software
> > for
> > any given aspect of the web.
>
> "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all
> people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, ..."
>
> EME is not a step towards this.  It is specifically designed to restrict
> certain media to the subset of people who have a particular combination
> of hardware, software and network infrastructure that is blessed by the
> CDM vendors.
>

The media in question is already restricted to those people. EME doesn't do
that. If anything, EME will increase the set of people able to access the
media. Think about it: those people are the potential customer base for
services like ours, why would we want to reduce the size of that set ?


>
> > It is progress towards the goal if such software can be made more widely
> > available (more platforms).
>
> You keep saying that, as though there is something about the EME
> proposal that makes this more likely.  What evidence have you to support
> that assertion?
>

Admittedly I don't have empirical evidence at this stage. It's very early.
But it's certainly a goal. A reason to believe it's likely is that porting
Flash and Silverlight to more platforms is unlikely to happen, since that
are substantial pieces of software (complete presentation/execution
environments) with - in the case of Silverlight - an announced end-of-life.
By contrast, CDMs will be much smaller in scope and therefore easier to
port. Both the vendors and the customers of CDMs have an incentive to
support as many platforms as possible in order to maximize their revenue
and potential customer base respectively.


>
> > As for languages, there is nothing in EME that restricts the number or
> > kind
> > of languages supported and I can say that at least for our service DRM in
> > no way restricts the languages we offer with our content. You seem to
> > have
> > accepted John F's arguments on accessibility.
>
> And note my weaker language on those points initially; "probably" rather
> than "most assuredly not".  My understanding of the intended
> implementation of CDMs is that they will be closed-source, proprietary
> blobs.  The content they 'protect' will not be available in the clear.
> This means that users cannot extend the system to support languages
> other than those supported by the CDM vendor, and can't use machine
> translation on the content either.
>

Why do you think CDMs will have any language-specific functionality at all
?


>
> > Regarding geographic location, to my knowledge the DRM products that are
> > likely to be made into CDMs don't support that. The CDM would need
> > some privileged access to an accurate geo-location service, something
> > which
> > I think would be technically difficult. That's not to say Internet video
> > services don't have geo-restrictions, just that they aren't enforced
> > using
> > DRM, to my knowledge.
>
> I don't think it'd be any more difficult than the IP-based geocoding
> that's currently used to restrict website content based on location?
>

That's a restriction applied by the server, not by a client component.
Using DRM to "enforce" geo-restrictions implies to me that you are somehow
making use of the robustness of the client component to more accurately
identity the location and then either report this securely to the server or
apply the restrictions at the client based on allowed locations returned in
the license. I don't see how you would do that.


>
> > It's a fact that there is content which comes with restricted licensing
> > terms. If we can make that content available on the web to more people,
> > on
> > more platforms, with better consideration of security, privacy and
> > accessibility,
>
> Privacy?  I'm curious as to how you expect inscrutable closed-source
> proprietary blobs to enhance the security of those who use them.
>

Compared to plugins today, since CDMs are integrated with browsers, we can
expect the browser implementors to pay attention to their security and
privacy properties. For example, if the CDM vendor refuses to explain to
the browser implementor exactly what the CDM does, the browser implementor
may choose to throw a scary dialog before the CDM is invoked, warning the
user that they are about to executed unknown, untrusted code and giving
them a choice not to (or more likely, the browser would choose not to ship
that CDM at all).

Likewise, if the CDM will communicate some kind of identifying information
to the server, the user may be warned of this (and given the choice to
disable the CDM). Such a CDM would not operate when in "anonymous" browsing
mode.

I think these are improvements over the status quo.


>
> > then this is progress towards the goal you quoted.
>
> But - and note that I'm only agreeing with accessibility amongst the
> points you raised - is such progress worth sacrificing the goal of an
> Open Web?  I argue that it's not.
>

Hmm, I feel caught in some circular logic. Weren't the goals you quoted the
goals of the W3C ? What do you consider the "goal of an open web" that
would be sacrificed ?

Nevertheless, I understand the argument: the improvements expected by EME
proponents are too small to be worth this other cost. I'd like to
understand better what this other cost really is. Specifically, what is the
practical benefit to users that you believe would be sacrificed by having
this work done in W3C rather than elsewhere.


>
> > Yes,
> > there will be people whose choice of hardware/software is incompatible
> > with
> > the licensing terms. That's not something that can be fixed by W3C.
>
> No, it's not something that can be fixed by the W3C, which is one of the
> many reasons why they shouldn't be recommending EME.
>

I don't follow the logic in that statement. Just because W3C can do nothing
to reconcile the incompatible licensing choices of copyleft software
authors and Hollywood content authors we should do nothing to improve the
technology situation for everyone else ?

...Mark


>
> --
> Duncan Bayne
> ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
> duncan_bayne
>
> I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
> urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number.
>
>