Re: Principles (was RE: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?)

[to the list this time ... still wrangling my email client]

> ...and so, your principled arguments stand tall, right up to the point
> where
> you have no qualms throwing those with accessibility issues under the
> bus? Do tell.

Yes.  I see that issue as boiling down to a choice between:

 - improving the accessibility story of proprietary DRM systems, vs.
 - maintaining the W3Cs core principles surrounding the Open Web

I choose the latter, not the former.

That's not a good decision to have to make, but it's the nature of the
proprietary DRM systems that causes the decision to be necessary, not
the nature of the Open Web.  Any one of a range of other possible
technical solutions would mean we wouldn't have to make that call.

I do appreciate that with your focus & values, you'd make a different
choice.

> You've already agreed that from any perspective you can look at this
> from,
> accessibility is coming up further ahead - perfect, no, but significantly
> further ahead. But you happily dismiss it as "not worth it". Is that
> principle not enough? Or is it all pigs are created equal, but some are
> more
> equal than others?

Not happily.  Not happily at all.  And not from all perspectives: this
is only an issue because (some!) media distributors demand proprietary
DRM systems.

> Finally, I see that the Director of the W3C, Tim Berners-Lee, has already
> decided that this work is "in scope" for the W3C (and since he is the guy
> you keep attributing to as the creator of these principles, and he sees it
> in scope, perhaps it is your interpretation of the principles that is out of
> skew)

Possibly.  As we're playing argument by authority, though, I'd like to
point out that the EFF agrees with *me*.

> Right there, it says it: commerce.
> 
> These commercial concerns have a problem, and they are coming forward,
> publicly, and working on a solution that will solve that solution. You
> have
> concerns? Fair enough. Should those concerns be the basis of driving this
> work underground, or away from the W3C? No.

The problem is that they've come forward with a solution that is
inimical to most of the Open Web goals stated by the W3C.  There are
many possible solutions - e.g. micropayment or payment framework
integration with media playback - that could address the issue in a way
that I'd wholeheartedly endorse as being compatible with Open Web goals.
 DRM is not one of them.

The issue is that 'big media' have not come forwards to say "we need a
commerce standard that will allow us to monetise content", they've said
"we want DRM, and here's how we'd like it implemented."

> I would strongly suggest that the best way to affect "success" is to work
> with these engineers, not try to stop them or drive them away from the W3C.
> The W3C's "blessing" of this work is not what is at issue (or perhaps it is
> for you) - for me, I just want this to be the best standard it can be,
> because it's going to emerge anyway, so we had best have a hand in it.

And this is what I mean when I say I get the sinking feeling that the
progression of EME to recommendation is a fait accompli.  It's why I and
others on this list think that the consultation is, if not a sham, so
limited in scope as to be ineffectual.  

The message seems to be: Debate implementation details?  Sure.  Debate
whether DRM should be endorsed by the W3C?  Sorry, already decided.

-- 
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.

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 00:48:22 UTC