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

Duncan Bayne wrote:
> > ...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.

OK, that's at least an honest answer. For you, *some* principles are better
than others, and never mind the negative consequences of that choice,
because, you know, it doesn't *directly* impact you this time around. You
can choose to use FOSS, or not; people with disabilities however don't get
to choose to be blind or not, or deaf or not. Just so that our priorities
and perspectives are clear here.


> 
> 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.

The nature of the proprietary DRM systems... what, *exactly* is your issue?
That DRM systems do things in secret that the end user has no control over?
Like what, exactly - and please do bring forward concrete evidence that a
DRM system has caused physical harm, financial distress, or any other "bad
thing" that is driving your concerns. I keep hearing how bad and scary and
horrible DRM is, but yet I've lived these past 15+ years* in this DRM world,
and I've never so much as stubbed my toe on DRM.
(* I chose 15 years, as that is how long DMCA has been with us)

I have also heard principled arguments around "open data" and the ideals of
Open Source, and while I respect people's rights to hold those ideals - as
firmly as they choose - I don't share them, nor does everyone, and it isn't,
or at least should not be, the goal of the W3C to impose that form of value
system on everyone.

What is not totally clear to me however is whether your objections are based
upon technical issues that are truly harmful, or whether your (to date)
principled arguments are based upon your personal principles.  If it's the
former, then by all means surface the issues and problems, so that perhaps
they can be worked on (in the open) and resolved. If it based solely on your
personal principles, then it is a religious discussion that cannot be won by
either side, and I will stop.


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

Hmmm... I see a class of content owners that have a specific set of
requirements, that currently Digital Rights Management addresses, using a
collection of proprietary technical solutions. If you have an equitable or
superior solution, by all means step forward. As I understand it, these
commercial entities have some basic requirements that they need/want met:

- control of distribution of their assets 
- control over unauthorized duplication of their assets
- control over modification, alteration, or derivative works of their assets
- (there may be others, but these appear to be the big 3)

I see none of these requirements as fundamentally "evil", or unreasonable in
a commercial context. These content owners have invested sizable sums of
money into these assets, and they seek to maximize their return on
investment, using legal and technical solutions available to them. Part of
that is to legitimately control who does what with their stuff. Some might
not like that, but it's not their call.


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

Except, the EME specification isn't being worked on at the EFF is it? If the
EFF wants to get into the standards business, then I wish them good luck.
Standards making is hard work, and you don't always get everybody nodding
their heads in agreement with a particular point of view or philosophy. And
writing standards is only half the equation - you need to get adoption of
those standards, else they are just a writing exercise. But please, do go to
the EFF and write a standard.


> 
> 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.

You keep saying that. Where are these alternative solutions? Bring them
forward, have them evaluated and reviewed by the very same people who are
expressing the needs I noted above. If your solution is superior, they will
most very likely adopt it - why wouldn't they?  I keep hearing "we could do
this, or we could do that..." - you know what? Go ahead, just do it. Don't
stand there and tell others what they should be doing, do it. Bring forth
alternative solutions. Put your money where your mouth is. If it is far
superior to the existing solutions, you can be a rich guy (or if you want,
you can give it all away - your choice there too).


> 
> 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."

Says you. Says the EFF, says the popular "geek" press (and not all "geek"
press agrees either BTW:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/drm-in-html5-is-a-victory-for-the-op
en-web-not-a-defeat/) Show me where a large media organization has said "it
must be DRM or else" - it isn't that black and white, no matter how many
times you say 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.

Please stop. The W3C has not said they are endorsing DRM - they have, quite
publicly, stated the contrary. 

They have decided however that the technical work of creating the API so
that DRM-like systems can *continue* to exist within the web ecosystem is in
scope for the W3C's HTML Working Group. Some might see that as a splitting
of hairs, but it is also factually true, where as your assertion is patently
false. That ship has also already sailed. 

As far as I can tell, the task before us now is not to stop or go forward,
but rather how to go forward while addressing all of the concerns that are
surfacing. If you have any such technical concerns, please speak up.

JF

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 03:31:13 UTC