Re: Letter on DRM in HTML from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:

> Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the Electronic
> > > Frontier Foundation concerns regarding DRM in HTML5
> >
> > There is nothing in the content protection discussion which impacts
> > to HTML5.  The HTML Working Group works on several specifications and
> > the one related to content protection - Encrypted Media Extensions
> > (EME) is a separate spec.  HTML5 is not affected by EME.
>
> Ok, so maybe I should clarify that in our letter, the term “HTML5” is
> meant in the somewhat broader sense that includes all the outputs of
> the current activities of W3C's HTML Working Group, and how they are
> likely to be implemented in practice.
>
> I would suggest that this is the meaning that matters to civil society
> persons (such as those who are organized in the Internet Governance
> Caucus) whose interest is not in whether there are several
> specifications or whether everything is contained in a single one,
> but who are concerned about the social impacts of how the Web is going
> to evolve.
>
> (“HTML5” might have a strictly defined technical meaning in which the
> term is used within W3C, but given the huge importance of W3C's work
> for the future of the world, these matters also get discussed outside
> of W3C, and no-one is really in control of how the meaning of terms
> evolves during such discussions. The meaning of words will always
> evolve to match distinctions that are meaningful and relevant to the
> participants in any given discourse.)
>
> > To clarify, the HTML WG Draft Charter neither mentions DRM or EME.
> > All that it states is that content protection is in scope for the
> > HTML Working Group.
> >
> > It is true that EME is the spec that the Working Group is currently
> > working on and we have accordingly published a Draft of that spec.
> > However, this spec has not yet received W3C endorsement or the
> > approval of the W3C Director.
>
> ACK.
>
> Indeed the key point of contention is whether “content
> protection” (where “protecting” content is meant in the sense of
> trying to prevent it from being used in ways to do not correspond to
> the desires of the copyright holders) should be considered in-scope or
> out-of-scope for W3C.
>
> The specifics of EME, and of how EME will likely be used with DRM
> systems (and what are the likely social consequences of that), are
> relevant in deciding whether one considers it acceptable for W3C to
> work on “content protection”, or not. After all, how can one judge the
> merits or dismerits of a particular decision without thinking about its
> likely consequences?
>

Hi Norbert,

Could I ask if your group has also considered the likely consequences of
the W3C NOT getting involved in this work ?

The fact that DRM is and will continue to be used for certain video content
on the web is not seriously disputed. I know many people would like to end
or at least discourage the use of DRM altogether, but this is not that
fight.

Our view is that the W3C is the best place to ensure that the integration
of DRM with the web is done in a way that mitigates as far as possible the
legitimate interoperability, security, privacy and accessibility concerns.
I'm struggling to understand how the W3C ruling these discussions
out-of-scope would result in a better outcome for users.

...Mark


>
> Best regards
> Norbert Bollow
> (in the role of co-coordinator of the IGC, http://igcaucus.org )
>
>
>