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

On 2013/06/13 19:38, Mark Watson wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone


Sent from my.


> On Jun 13, 2013, at 2:33 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2013/06/12 17:18, Mark Watson wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Emmanuel Revah
>>> <stsil@manurevah.com>
>> 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>> On 2013/06/12 01:03, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>>> This discussion (for me) is within the scope of the W3 and not
>>> life
> 
>>> in general.
> 
>>>  >
> 
>>>  > If there is no other way to restrict content other than by
> 
>>> involving privacy concerns, should the W3C endorse it ?
> 
>>>  >
> 
>>>  It that's the question, taking in account W3C is an organism
>>> that
> 
>>> try
> 
>>> to promote open web, definition that include users security and
> 
>>> privacity by itself and common sense, then definitely the answer
>>> is
> 
>>> "no".
> 
>> 
> 
>> You, I and others would of course say no. However Mark has been
> 
>> asking "us" to provide a better solution to avoid privacy concerns.
> 
>> 
> 
>> The intention of my question is to out this insane notion that EME
> 
>> opponents should be responsible for finding an alternative solution
>> to
> 
>> implement DRM that would satisfy everyone.
> 
>> 
> 
>> Emmanuel,
> 
>> 
> 
>> The W3C does not exist in a vacuum and it's reasonable to consider
>> the
> 
>> consequences of our decisions within W3C on the wider world. I have
> 
>> argued that W3C working on EME will result in a better outcome for
> 
>> users than the likely alternatives. There are three threads of
> 
>> argument against this:
> 
>> 
> 
>> 1) That this is not true, W3C working on EME will result in a worse
> 
>> outcome for users than the likely alternatives.
> 
>> 2) That EME is inconsistent with principles that are central to W3C.
> 
>> The outcome for users is irrelevant because this is a matter of
> 
>> principle.
> 
>> 3) That the proposal retains some negative features of the other
> 
>> likely outcomes i.e. that it is not "good enough".
> 
>> 
> 
>> I have not seen a clear articulation of (1), with the exception of
>> one
> 
>> detail which I shall address below.
> 
>> 
> 
>> (2) we have discussed at length without consensus and I maintain
>> that
> 
>> there are other areas of W3C work which exhibit some but not all of
> 
>> the features of EME that are said to be inconsistent with principle.
> 
>> 
> 
>> For (3) it's reasonable - and not insane - to challenge those who
>> say
> 
>> the proposal is not good enough to make their own proposal that is
> 
>> better. Also, arguing (3) is inconsistent with arguing that the work
> 
>> should be stopped now at such an early stage: perhaps some of the
> 
>> negative features can be addressed by actually working on them. It
> 
>> could be argued that W3C EME is not a big enough improvement over
>> the
> 
>> status quo to justify some other cost. Those costs need to be
>> spelled
> 
>> out to make this argument. Further, this argument can be made only
> 
>> once we are further advanced in the process and know better what W3C
> 
>> EME will be: it's not an argument for stopping the work dead.
> 
>> 
> 
>> The one aspect of (1) which I accept is a concern is that the status
> 
>> quo - based on NPAPI plugins - at least enables any browser to
>> support
> 
>> any plugin. There is an open EME bug for this interoperability
>> issue.
> 
>> But we also know that Flash and Silverlight - or plugins generally -
> 
>> are not a long-term solution. 
> 
> Mark Watson,
> 
> I maintain what I said previously.
> 
> Your attempt to discredit DRM opponents and deviate the conversation
> when it is convenient for you betrays your manipulative intentions. It
> is typical behaviour when there are no arguments left and the
> questions
>  at hand cannot be addressed directly. I would have prefered an honest
> "I
> don't know" or anything somewhat sincere.
> 
> Instead you responded with a long unrelated response to the very
>  specific and simple question, which, in case you forgot, is:
> 
>   If there is no other way to restrict content other than by
> involving
> privacy concerns, should the W3C endorse it ?
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, I thought my answer to that was obvious from my
> previous comments. I did not intend to be evasive (though I think your
> comments above are a little excessive).


I'm not sure which "previous comment", perhaps you mean replies that 
have been written further down the fork.

What I said was based on this and other replies of yours where I noticed 
the same habit of manipulating the conversation. Maybe I am being a bit 
excessive, maybe not.



> Of course, if there are necessarily privacy issues associated with
> restricted media the W3C could play a great role in mitigating those,
> so yes, the W3C should work on this aspect and the outcome will be
> better for users as a result.
> 
> We have an open
> bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965 [2]
> 
> See, for example, my comment 15 - the comment thread there is a little
> wide-ranging shall we say.


It's an interesting bug report, it's too bad you didn't simply answer 
what you could have and instead chose to evade.



> Should the W3C advance the specification to Recommendation if these
> issues cannot be addressed? That depends on to whose satisfaction. If
> those issues are not addressed to my satisfaction then I'd obviously
> vote no. Like anything else we'll use the W3C process to decide if the
> issue has been satisfactorily addressed. 
> 
>> Contrary to what you make it seem and regardless of my opinion on
>> DRM
>> within the vacuum of the W3C or in life in general, my question does
>> not
>> suggest that work on EME be stopped. It merely asks if the W3C
>> should
>> endorse something *if* it involves privacy concerns. I could not be
>> more
>> clear.
> 
> I hope the above is a clear answer.
> 
>> The W3C does not owe you or anyone or any business a standard for
>> DRM.
>> If it can be done without any negative effects to the Open Web and
>> its
>> users (privacy and security) then that would be great and I believe
>> we
>> both agree on that.
> 
> Actually I think the bar should be that there must be *positive*
> effects for users for the W3C to be involved, compared to the likely
> alternatives.


Nice.


>> In the meantime, it should be the duty of those who
>> want such a thing to exist to provide ideas and solutions for such
>> implementations, with or without any voluntary help from others.
> 
> And indeed we are doing plenty if work, such as the privacy thread
> mentioned.


That's very good.


>> So yes, it is insane and borderline manipulative to hold DRM
>> opponents
>> *responsible* for coming up with alternative solutions.
> 
> I'm talking about those who reject the approach of non-user-modifiable
> client components altogether, yet still argue that they should have
> access to premium content services.


I never saw this argument anywhere. If it was said somewhere, I never 
shared it. Either way, it's irrelevant to the current thread.


> I just don't know how that could
> be done. I'm sorry. Maybe I am just not smart enough. What would be
> needed is is new kind if content protection system that was acceptable
> to (at least some) content providers. The request for proposals is
> reasonable and genuine. I don't assume that because I cannot think of
> anything that no one else can.


This again. I did not say that *only* DRM proponents should work on 
this, I said that DRM/EME opponents should not be held *responsible* for 
finding a better alternative.



>> When *you* asked:
>> 
>>> how can we give the user the _option_ to _voluntarily_ accept that
>> 
>>> certain restrictions be applied to certain data without opening
>>> the
>> 
>>> door to the security and privacy concerns expressed above ?
>> 
>> I felt it was a very good question, so good that I wonder if making
>> sure
>> the user's privacy and security is not compromised should be a
>> condicio
>> sine qua non for EME to be considered W3C worthy.
> 
> Well, we already have the open bug referenced above and this is called
> out in the SOTD. This is another example if the benefit if doing this
> work in W3C.


I will have a more thorough read another day, right now is not the right 
time for me.


I appreciate that you are almost the only EME proponent here to reply to 
participate in the discussion, I know I give you a hard time and so do 
others. I still do not agree with some of your methods, but I do still 
believe you would be first to endorse a "perfect solution". I know EME 
is too important for you to let it slip by, hence I wondered what would 
be the acceptable price for you, because we both know a perfect solution 
is likely to not be possible.


Anyway, I'm done with this thread, it has been interesting, thanks to 
everyone here.




-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 15:50:47 UTC