- From: <piranna@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:55:19 +0200
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>, Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "coordinators@igcaucus.org" <coordinators@igcaucus.org>
>> It would strength it, > > So then, you would support such a move? (yes or no question) > Since there are currently better alternatives that don't abuse users rights (password-based content, non-destructive watermarks...) no, I will never support such a move. On the other hand, if that open CDM system would not abuse users rights and is really intelligent and effective (not like the current ones that doesn't go to the root of the problem nor look for innovative solutions) and is a generic solution that can be used on other areas that are not directly related with just only protect content media (that as I told before several times, it's useless to try to prevent the people copying them) then yes, I would support it and also I would also collaborate with ideas or also coding it. >> but content owners would not trust it >> because it's open and don't use it, so we are in the same >> currently situation. > > Not exactly, as it would provide an Open Source implementation that *could* > be used. Nobody - NOBODY - can force a publisher to use a specific tool or > Specification/Standard if it does not meet their needs. This holds true for > the W3C as well. > I absolutely agree, nobody can for force to any other to do anything, also the W3C to the publishers. That's just why I think this open source CDM will be mainly useless, because probably media majors would decide to use other closed CDMs since being open they would be easier to break, leading us to a fragment market the same that happens with <video> tag, with the difference that with video tag media providers try to have their content in all available format to be compatible with a bigger audience while with CDMs they will only use the one they think will protect better their intellectual property, it's said, the closed one. It doesn't means that the open one wouldn't be technologically better... >> In fact, if some content owners use it >> since some browsers only accept it as a format like it currently >> happens with <video> tag it would be considered a success because >> "someone" is using this open CDM the same way VP8 is a "success" >> instead of everybody using closed ones the same way they are using >> h264, > > See my earlier comment. If your end-goal is to eliminate Premium Content > protection - period - then the vehicle for that goal is not the W3C, and > will never be the W3C. If your goal is to help craft an Open-Source friendly > solution that implementers can choose to use, and it meets all of the goals > of all members of the W3C (including the content creators/owners), then > stick around, because that is what the W3C does. > I would love premium content protection dissapear both from ethical, philosofical and technological principles, but I know at this moment is an utopical idea so I prefer to work on other not so agressive solutions. DRM is not the only one solution to the content protection problem, it's just the easier to implement and the one that on an ideal extensive explotation would lead to the biggest beneficts for the publishers and their associates, but definitely not the most fair for anybody (including themselves). >> but definitely this would became another corner stone for a >> (already) fragmented web, being the main victim the final consumers >> if they can't be able to see the content because they choosed a >> browser that can't be able to play it. > > The W3C cannot force browsers to use *any* of their Recommendations. They > can (and do) make a strong case for why using common standards benefits the > web, and eventually by extension the browser developer's own user-base, but > browsers can do whatever they want: witness some of the browser extensions > to CSS (-webkit-mask-attachment anyone? Ref: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/-webkit-mask-attachment) > And it's good that W3C doesn't force to anybody just to improve innovation, but problems arise for interoperation when there are conflicting point of view, and this are mainly due to third party interests instead of just technological issues, like what happened with the video tag war and now with EME and CDMs. >> Another alternative would be >> to enforce the usage of this open CDM both only allowing it on the >> spec or forcing content owners to offer at least a version of the >> content using it, but this would also go against the definition of >> open web, only that in another different direction. > > Once again, the W3C are not the internet police - they are a Standards body. > They have an important, perhaps critical, role to play in guiding the > development of the web, but they do not define business rules or policies > for their membership, or for the wider world-wide-web, nor do they "enforce" > these Standards: they put them out there and implementers are free to use > them, or not. (Remember when the W3C was working on XHTML2? Great idea + > zero implementer support = useless standards work.) > Once again, maybe more a technological issue, but problem came from the fact of breaking backward compatibility, it's said, an ethical decision. > Until you are ready to accept this truism, you are hoping for outcomes that > cannot happen. > You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... ;-) -- "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo Unix." – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 22:56:07 UTC