Re: I strongly urge all supporters to reconsider the EME proposal. It is not in your best interests!

Zak, Piranna,

I think you have mis-understood the point of the EME proposal. We are not
here deciding whether DRM will be used on the web. DRM is used on the web
and will continue to be used on the web for as long as it is a requirement
of the licenses for content that web users want to watch. If you are
opposed to DRM, it's that last part you need to change: either the licenses
or what people want to watch.

The above is just the way things are. If there is popular content on the
web that is supported in one browser, the other browsers will want to
support it too and they will do wo with or without the W3C.

What we are trying to do with EME is to *reduce* the amount of non-standard
proprietary technology needed to do this. I would reduce it to zero if I
could, I just don't know how to do that.

See also
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/drm-in-html5-is-a-victory-for-the-open-web-not-a-defeat/

A couple more comments below.

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:43 AM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>wrote:

> +1, you've exposed very clearly your arguments and I totally agree with
> them.
> El 15/05/2013 16:37, "Zak Fenton" <zak.fenton@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> DRM simply does not belong on the web, it is contrary to freedom of speech
>> and it is of zero benefit to the consumers who fuel the web economy. It
>> will only make browsers and servers more complicated and more error prone,
>> restrict the ability of people to use the web, and waste CPU cycles
>> encrypting what is probably already widely available to pirates.. As any
>> technologically competent person is aware, unless you can stream the media
>> direct to the viewer's brain, there will ALWAYS be ways to circumvent these
>> methods: A paying subscriber to a channel or buyer of a movie can simply
>> record their screen and audio output (without any quality loss if they're
>> smart), freely sharing the result with others.
>>
>
Avoiding a loss of quality - of one form or another - is actually much
harder than you suggest. There are barriers - understanding and buying an
HDPC ripper, re-encoding, a/v sync, redistribution, adaptive streaming etc.
that make things far less convenient than sharing a URL to an unencrypted
file (or the URL + key for an encrypted file)


> You cannot beat piracy with technology. Suffice to say pirates have access
>> to better technology, because they get it free! The only thing that will
>> slow the continual increase in piracy is better content, content which is
>> actually worth paying for, and better content developers, content
>> developers who people actually want to pay.
>>
>
Yes, and we are finding in market after market that people are very willing
to pay a modest monthly sum for access to range of content that is
available only with 'DRM-required' licences.


> This proposal will not help anybody, it will only make web standards more
>> complicated, harder to correctly implement, and less reliable as a result.
>> I'm really beginning to lose my faith in standards bodies like this to
>> develop standards which are actually of benefit to humanity, rather than
>> standards which have been set by investors desperately trying to squeeze
>> profit from a 20th century business model. This simply does not make any
>> sense.
>>
>
Since when is pay-per-use or subscription-based instant on-demand access to
content streamed over the Internet a "20th century business model" ? I
spent just under half of my adult life (so far) in the 20th century and I
didn't notice any paid-for internet video streaming.

The lone business model advocated by many opponents of DRM is a
download-to-own one, in which the only thing which can be sold is full
ownership rights in a copy of the content. This business model dates back
to the invention the printing press, when copies or creative works could
first be economically produced. Not that it's a bad model, it just isn't
new.


> Older generations developed the technology, but it was my generation that
>> made the internet and the web a popular success. Without the freedoms we
>> had, future generations will simply move towards underground protocols and
>> networks that protect their freedom, creating a new safe haven for real
>> criminals. If this proposal is accepted and widely implemented, it will
>> perhaps mark the beginning of the end for the relevance of web standards,
>> but certainly not for freedom online.
>>
>
DRM-protection of content on the Internet is and will continue to be widely
implemented for as long as the licenses require it and the content is
popular. You're in the wrong place if you want to change those two things.
EME is about how the web fits into that reality and ultimately boils down
to a rather narrow choice between arbitrary, bloated plugins and
browser-controlled CDMs with consistent functionality and APIs (and, yes,
before someone comments, CDMs share some properties with plugins, but the
we think the differences are sufficient to be worthwhile).

...Mark



>
>> Again, I strongly urge all involved parties to reconsider their support
>> for this proposal.
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Zak Fenton.
>>
>