Re: Brightcove retreats from HTML5, pushes refreshed SDKs for native Android, iOS apps

On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:

> 
> 
> > From: watsonm@netflix.com
> > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:26:31 +0000
> ...
> 
> 
> > > > The encryption of Premium Content is not going to magically
> > > > go away because the W3C refused to address that business
> > > > need.
> 
> > > You could use the same argument to support DRM on all the
> > > web content.  If you follow this to the limit then the open web
> > > platform becomes nothing but a web router passing opaque
> > > traffic to DRM components.  This is not a vision that many of
> > > us share.
> 
> > You can't make the same argument, because it is really
> > only premium video content that is using DRM on the web
> > today and all John said is that this is not going to magically
> > go away.
> 
> There does not appear to be any boundary defined in the
> reasoning John used.  The tone appears to be that if any
> content author requires restrictions on the use of web
> content then it should be addresses.  What would be the
> reasoning behind premium video content authors being
> the only exception?

It's just a practical point: those are the only people demanding these kind of restrictions today.

It seems far-fetched that web browser implementors would choose to subsume their entire rendering engine into some EME-like framework, given the absence of demand for that. I suppose it is possible, though. It would be rather like the Flash/Silverlight situation, although even those do no apply DRM to anything other than video. 

> 
> > > > Wishing and hoping for some kind of utopian world where
> > > > all entertainment content is freely available without restriction
> > > > is naïve at best. 
> 
> > > I believe this is a misrepresentation because this it is certainly
> > > not the basis for my objection to the EME.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Perhaps you mean: Wishing and hoping for some kind
> > > of utopian world where open web content is freely usable
> > > once legally received on an open web platform is naïve
> > > at best?
> 
> > > Perhaps the W3C means: We do not equate 'open'
> > > content with material that must be usable free of charge
> > > once it has been legally downloaded?
> 
> > You seem to imagine a world where the only supported business
> > model on the web for video content is a download-to-own one.
> 
> No, not at all.  There is a large solution space for such business
> models and many may well be far less objectionable.  But this is
> a matter that deserves more discussion.  I am just trying to
> raise a concern that some of the proponents are
> misrepresenting the objections that I have to be related
> to access control to servers.
> 
> Does anyone object to DRM on the basis that it could be
> used to restrict access to servers?
> 
> While DRM may well be used to address server access
> control, it would not appear to be necessary to solve this
> problem.
> 
> Surely narrowing the discussion would be constructive.

I'm not sure I understand the point about server access control - it does seem a bit off-topic.

> 
> > The problem is that this is not a very popular model with
> > consumers for video (unlike music). The Internet has been
> > very successful at supporting new business models, so a
> > one-size-fits-all approach there for the 'open web' would
> > be unfortunate, to say the least.
> 
> There may well be ways that these users needs can be
> supported while mitigating some of the negative impact.
> 
> I have all along suggested using Web Internets to make
> it relatively seamless for users to move from the open
> web platform to restricted components for viewing
> premium video content.
> 
> > Rental and subscriptions models are examples where the
> > content is not 'freely usable' once legally obtained, any
> > more than you are free to do anything with a rental car
> > that you would be free to do with your own car.
> > Consumers understand and appear very happy with
> > this situation as it provides access to content for a far
> > lower price than 'ownership', which - as I said - most
> > people don't want for video.
> 
> It's the technology demanded to enforce these agreements
> that is the concern and the imbalances and negative
> impacts that this has on everyone irrespective of their
> desire to even view premium video content under these
> terms.

Ok, so it's not the restrictions on usage of content per se that you object to but the idea of enforcing those with client-side technology ? And then only if that technology is integrated with the web platform, not if it is within a separate native application ?

Can you explain why it makes such a big difference to your position how the technology is delivered ? I would certainly expect browsers to give users the ability to disable CDMs if they choose. Quite likely that should be the default state, and users should be asked if they want to enable it the first time a pages attempts to use it. Why are things so much better (ok, less bad) if the user has to download and install a separate app ?

> 
> > Are you really advocating that such business models
> > not be supported by the open web ? That the only model
> > should be one where content is 'freely usable' once
> > received (for example can be stored indefinitely for later use).
> 
> The use of the term 'open web' in this question makes
> this difficult to answer, and I believe a matter for further
> discussion.  But I am certainly not advocating that such
> business models not be supported on the Internet - there
> is a large solution space and there many well be many
> solutions that I would be much happier with.   The industry
> already has many solutions available.   This does not
> mean that there is no cause to object to the proposed
> solution.

Ok, correct me if I get this wrong, but you do seem to be saying that the W3C open web platform - the set of technologies defined by the W3C - should only support business models where the content is 'freely usable' once received. Other technologies can be used for other business models. This would exclude service like Netflix, say, where the content is usable only at certain times - in our case only whilst you remain a subscriber.

> 
> In summary, using tactics that misrepresent opponents and
> that then proceed to use this misrepresentation to dismiss
> their concerns may not be constructive.

I agree with that and certainly don't intend to mis-represent you. I do try to word my understanding of others positions as a question "have I understood correctly that you mean X ?", so apologies if I missed that somewhere.

I'd note also that many of the opponents of this proposal don't seem to have much qualm about misrepresenting my position, including in published material. Especially the idea that by not proposing an actual DRM we are somehow trying to hide the fact that the specification is mainly about integrating with DRM components. Something which has been abundantly clear from the very start.

…Mark

> 
> cheers
> Fred