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

> OK, that's at least an honest answer. 

Thanks. I'm really trying to be up-front about this, and I appreciate
that you are too.

> 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 an accurate summary of my position.  I *do* mind the negative
consequences.  Lack of support for accessibility bothers me on many
levels, from an ethical position to a purist-developer position (I wish
people would read and abide by UX guidelines).

Given the choice between better accessibility in closed-source,
proprietary DRM solutions and an open web, I'll choose the latter. 
That's how I see the options, and just having to make that choice sucks.

> 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)

There are plenty of examples for the Googling - the most recent that
springs to mind is the Diablo fiasco.  Also, bit rot is a big problem (a
few DRM systems have shut down over the years, hosing their users'
collections). Add in the fundamental trust issues with closed-source
apps (Sony Rootkit, anyone?) and you've quite a list.

Perhaps you haven't encountered it personally, but DRM causes a lot of
pain for a lot of people.  And all of the above cases are failures to
function.  Even when working as intended, DRM causes all sorts of
problems including:

 - fair use issues ('fair use' is not a feature of any DRM system I know
 of)
 - poor platform support (I'm a GNU/Linux user)
 - geographical segregation ("this content is not available in your
 country" or the related "why does this movie cost me twice what it does
 in your country?")
 - anti-features like unskippable sections on DVDs

> - 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.

I don't think those requirements are illegitimate.  I have in fact built
and sold a DRM system for Windows software to allow companies to do just
that.  What I think is that such a system - DRM - is inimical to many of
the stated goals of the W3C, which is why the W3C should have no part in
endorsing it (our disagreement about whether EME or CDM constitutes DRM
notwithstanding).

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

And I believe, for reasons I've spelled out in a separate post in reply
to Mark Watson, that that statement is at best pure sophistry.  EME is a
component of DRM systems and exists for no other reason.  Therefore,
progression of the EME proposal to recommendation status would represent
endorsement of DRM.

> 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. 

Yes, that's what they've stated.  That is a fact.  Whether it's correct
or not is another matter; I hope that the formal objection raised by the
EFF will result in that statement being proved as incorrect as think it
is.

> 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/) 

That article makes the mistake (well, at least I think it's a mistake)
of distinguishing between native apps for DRM and HTML5 + EME + CDM.  I
don't think there's a useful distinction to be made - a CDM is no more
part of 'the web' than a native app.

> 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.

Well, I'm looking at the existence of the EME spec, and no other
proposed solutions, as an indicator.  As folks here have pointed out,
EME is happening, either with or without the W3C's involvement.  That
sounds like "DRM or else" to me, or more specifically, "DRM whether it's
standardised by you folks or not."

> 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.

Those are orthogonal concerns.  One can oppose a proposal without
proposing an alternative; that in no way reduces the validity of the
opposition.  There is, of course, a very good solution that already
exists: give up on DRM.

> 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.

Many of the concerns raised by myself and others are only addressable by
abandoning the proposal.

-- 
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 05:41:54 UTC