Re: What change could we make? (was Re: Letter on DRM in HTML)

On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Nikos Roussos
<comzeradd@mozilla-community.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 11:32 -0700, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>>        When in this
>>        situation, W3C works to coordinate the creation of more
>>        effective ways
>>        of expanding the control of publishers over cultural goods
>>        beyond the
>>        generally accepted rights of copyright holders,
>>
>>
>> That's not what is proposed. We're proposing to improve the technical
>> integration of _already existing_ means of control, addressing some of
>> the user concerns with those (security, privacy, accessibility).
>> That's different from "creation of more effective ways of expanding
>> control". If DRM were not already widely deployed and used on the web
>> and if the W3C was likely to cause it to be, then your
>> characterization would be more accurate, but neither of these are
>> true.
>
> So in your opinion W3C doesn't work on creating new ways of controlling
> users, just improves the integration of the existing ones :)

'Controlling users' is a loaded phrase. Hugo is more accurate when he
says 'controlling usage'. Under our proposal, users remain free to
use/install/enable/disable DRM technology on their computers, or not.
It's only if they choose to use services that require this
functionality that their use of the content/service is controlled in
ways that should be clear before they decide to use the
content/service.

But, yes, the proposal is about improving integration of existing methods.

> Well.. that doesn't change much. Improving the integration makes it
> easier for content providers to spread DRM usage.

I explained in another mail why I don't think that's the case. A
content providers decision to use DRM or not will turn mainly on other
issues.

Improved integration will hopefully lead to wider platform support for
those who do choose to use DRM.

>
>>        that means that W3C is
>>        putting its (considerable!) influence behind one of the sides
>>        in a
>>        significant political conflict of interests.
>>
>>
>> I draw a different conclusion about what would constitute "taking
>> sides". If W3C were to refuse to even discuss a proposal from it's
>> members on the basis that the proposal is intended to be used with*
>> technologies that _some people_ believe should be the subject of legal
>> controls, but which are presently perfectly legal, _that_ would be
>> taking sides.
>
> Not perfectly legal. That's already discussed and I think already
> agreed. In many parts of the world taking away some of the consumer
> rights is not legal and not acceptable.

I don't want to get into a legal argument. AFAIK DRM on the web has
not been the subject of legal challenges to date. I think a group such
as W3C needs to rely on that measure - rather than in principle legal
arguments that many of us are not qualified to engage in.

> If W3C disregards that fact and
> proposes a way to control users and improve the existing ways of doing
> that (see above), then it takes sides.

I don't think that makes sense: your saying that a single instance of
a single jurisdiction making a decision against a particular
technology (which hasn't happened AFAIK) should bar W3C working on any
APIs related to that technology?

...Mark
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 14:37:57 UTC