Balance - (was RE: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD))

Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> 
> 
> It would be double-talk if it leads to a contradiction. But that
> depends
> on the definitions of "Open" and "open-ness".
> 
> One problem seems to be that there is no agreement regarding the
> definition of "Open Web Platform" within the W3C. So far that might not
> have been a big problem, but it is one in the context of DRM and EME.

Earlier, as part of this thread, Kornel pointed to the following W3C statement:

 "The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge."

I will suggest here that the insertion of the word "Commerce" was not accidental - that TBL and the W3C understand/understood that the web will and does have a significant role to play with regard to how commerce as we know it will be impacted.

We now have a group of commercial content producers, who, in the lawful pursuit of their commerce and financial interests, have a technical problem that they believe requires a solution. Within the W3C we have a group who scoff, and respond with variants of "you must change your business model", and you have others who truly want to look at the problem and find a solution (and if I am to be both honest and fair, I suspect that yes, there are likely others who *are* looking for a W3C stamp-of-approval with no questions asked). I consider myself to be in the middle group - the one that believes that the collective intelligence that drives so much of what the W3C produces can find a solution to this problem. A solution that is respectful to *both* sides of this debate, and one that benefits both sides as well.


> 
> Some potentially relevant material is available here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
> 
> But the W3C belongs to the official supporters of Open Stand. One of
> the
> principles is:
> 
> "Balance. Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by any
> particular person, company or interest group."

However Andreas, this can also be exactly the justification for continued work on EME/DRM: Balance. 

Balance between those users who wish to see FOSS and FOSS-like ecosystems flourish, and those commercial interests who legitimately point to rampant theft of their - and this is the important distinction here - *NOT* so much Intellectual Property, but rather Commercial Entertainment property.

We have 2 choices: do something or do nothing. 

When we do NOTHING, we cede that Balance completely to those who are opposed to DRM, and *IGNORE* those who require some form of solution. That hardly seems like a balanced approach to me. This cuts both ways as well - if we allow the "Rubber Stamp" path to proceed by "doing nothing", then we are willfully ignoring the perspectives of the other side of the debate.  It seems then that the "Do Nothing" approach can fail both or either side of this debate.

Which, logic then dictates, leaves us with no other option than to "Do Something". This is, in fact, the path that the W3C is taking, or trying to take when it's not bogged down by philosophical maneuvering.


> 
> Another Open Stand principle is:
> 
> "Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants
> to collective empowerment by striving for standards that ... provide
> global interoperability ..."
> http://open-stand.org/principles/
> 
> EME is not only dominated by an interest group (DRM proponents) but it
> is by design ignoring another interest group (the Open Source
> community)
> because DRM is globally not interoperable with an Open Source
> environment.

Technically, or philosophically? 

There is certainly not a *technical* reason that a system could be arrived at for an Open Source environment (as witnessed by Linux packages that allow for the playing of .mp3s - http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/mp3_linux.html, or licensed and DRM'ed content such from sites like Hulu - http://www.calculate-linux.org/packages/licenses/Hulu-EULA that work TODAY!) And while the licenses of such FOSS packages might not "permit" this, there are countless users who ignore those licenses (in very much the same way that they willfully ignore and steal other content with different types of licenses, via sites like Pirate Bay), and so while I am the first to admit that 2 wrongs don't make a right, I once again point to the fact that this is not a technical problem, but rather one of Philosophy. 

I respect your right to hold the principles (and licenses) that are the cornerstone of FOSS as "sacred", just as much as I respect other principled convictions such as not eating pork (Jews), beef (Hindus) or meat period (Vegetarians/Vegans). That doesn't mean I or you have the right to protest and block grocery stores from selling beef, pork or any other form of meat. That isn't balanced - that is forcing your point of view on everyone, whether they agree or not.

The role and goal of the W3C, as I see it, is not to prescribe philosophy, but to works towards technical interoperability. That means balancing the needs of both the FOSS and Commercial content communities, not favoring one over the other.

JF

Received on Saturday, 15 June 2013 00:33:17 UTC