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

John,


John Foliot [2013-06-13T20:04]:
> "The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless
> of disability is an essential aspect." -- Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and
> inventor of the World Wide Web

Yes and orthogonal to DRMs.

You can have accessibility with DRM, you can have accessibility without DRM, because it is unrelated. You can have UI non accessible with DRM, you can have UI non accessible without DRM. It is not a good criteria for the discussion.


> These engineers are currently doing that work
> inside of the W3C, a place where work is done in the open, is open to public
> scrutiny and feedback,


Any discussions happening in an open forum is better than in a closed forum. Still unrelated to what is at stake.
 
> in an effort to
> educate, explain, and reason on why this messy bit of engineering must
> exist,

Here is the core of the issue. "Must exist". This is set as a requirement. A part of the industry wants it, it doesn't mean, it must exist.



> Finally, I see that the Director of the W3C, Tim Berners-Lee, has already
> decided that this work is "in scope" for the W3C

So I have seen that statement a few times. I haven't found yet any pointers in public W3C space about that mention from Tim.
http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=eme+&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=tim&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=&period_year=&index-type=g&index-grp=Public__FULL&type-index=&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date

There is a misleading statement in Jeff's blog post [1]

>Against this backdrop, the W3C Director has established that work on content protection for the Web is in scope for the HTML Working Group.

with a link to a message [2] from "Philippe Le Hégaret, for the W3C Team." 


>The HTML Working Group is chartered to provide "APIs for the
>manipulation of linked media" [2]. As such, API extensions to the
>HTMLMediaElement interface are in scope for the HTML Working
>Group. This includes work items like the Media Source Extensions,
>already published as a First Public Working Group, or the Encrypted
>Media Extensions.

[1]: http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html
[2]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html

The closest I have seen of a public message from Tim is the SXSW report [3]. 
At 53m30s, the discussion starts about DRM. He says that 

54:32 -> 

> "Anyway, it is not very effective, because things get ripped off anyway, and that's more where I'm coming from. But there's certain… certainly if you like this boundary of people who put things on the Web without DRM which is huge, and things that people want to put out there with DRM. I think we have to work on different… different business models. I think we need more ways of… what I think is important getting money back to the performers, the person who wrote the song and the person who performs the song need to be able to get… we need to be able to get money back to them. So how come… (applause)… thanks. So we need to find ways of doing that. So people have done it using donate buttons, but now W3C is looking at doing work on payment protocols. So do get involved. So think about as a user when you read something /this is really good/ I would like to stroke(?) that guy with just giving 10 cents or something everytime I read his blog. How can you make that really easy and really secure so that nobody ends up capturing your 10 cents without you realizing. So how can we have mixtures… at the moment for example around Boston I can subscribe, I can pay this monthly small subscription and I get these live streams come [something (?)] dot com. These live streams of music from local bars that I haven't the energy to get down there myself and I just have them playing in the kitchen. That's great, I just payed a little bit of money and they swear some of the money get back to the musicians. The most of the money gets back to the venue at least. I don't know how much the venue takes. I think we need to explore a lot of different ways of getting the money back to the musicians. HTML5, if we don't put the hooks for DRM, for the use of DRM subsystems into HTML5 then people would just go back using Flash. So if you are people who would prefer HTML5 which just keep […?] HTML5 doesn't define DRM. It just provides hooks you have in DRM systems to connect to it. If you likely offload the DRM system to another subsystem. But I think there was a strong feeling it would delay the explosion of HTML. A whole bunch of people would have to learn how to use completely different proprietary technology, we will loose the interoperability, and for all there is some people are not gonna release things without DRM at the moment. I think I feel we are going towards more DRM-free… free  world. But the most important thing is getting money back to the musicians."

End: 57:35

[3]: https://soundcloud.com/officialsxsw/open-web-platform-hopes-fears
(pfew that was long to decrypt timbl as usual ;) ) 


> (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)

Conflating the role of the director of W3C and Tim's aura. What I have read is:
The W3C Team replied, as for Tim, and the SXSW speech, is a lot more nuanced.
Let's keep to what has been actually stated, that would make the discussion easier. 


> 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.

Yes, but not necessary toward a system which solidifies DRM in the ecosystem. I have said in another message the most important is to provide a way to pay the artists. That is what is at stake. This does not equate with DRM-only world.


-- 
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 05:05:53 UTC