- From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:48:27 -0400
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- CC: Matt Matrisciano <thegreentrilby@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>, Zak Fenton <zak.fenton@gmail.com>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Thanks Mark, On 05/15/2013 11:56 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Matt Matrisciano > <thegreentrilby@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Are concerns taken seriously on the other mailing list, or is it a spot to >> send people to voice their concerns with other likeminded people? >> > > There is active discussion on that list between people both for and against > EME and those inbetween, including participation by W3C staff and the W3C > CEO. >From the W3C staff, I'll echo your call for active discussion on this restrictedmedia list. We opened the Community Group as a home for the broader discussion -- what place does "protected content" or "restricted media" have in the Open Web Platform? how can the Web, and open standards, support the interests of varied parties and stakeholders? are some of these interests incompatible? Faced with diverging interests, are there places a standards discussion can make DRM's restrictions more compatible with software freedom? Such concrete recommendations could be appropriate for discussion in the HTML-media, but for even those, it might help to sharpen them in the restrictedmedia group first. If, at the end of these discussions, deep incompatibilities persist, it will come back to the W3C Director to decide whether W3C should "Recommend" Encrypted Media. Discussions and analysis on all lists can help to inform that decision -- especially if they go beyond "DRM bad, hence drop EME." --Wendy > I would say again, though, that arguing in W3C that 'content licenses > should not require DRM' is not a good use of your time because that > decision is not made by the W3C or any of its members. Also, progressing > the EME proposal, or not, has no bearing on that question. > > What it is useful to discuss in the W3C - and what the restricted media > list is really for - is to explore what it means for the web and W3C's > openness goals that content with restrictive licensing terms (I mean those > that require DRM) actually exists and is popular. The W3C's position is > that it is important that web supports this kind of content and the > restricted media list is a good place to discuss how, or indeed to question > that position. > > ...Mark > > >> >> On May 15, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >> Please take this discussion to a more appropriate forum such as >> http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/ **** >> >> ** ** >> >> /paulc**** >> >> HTML WG co-chair**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada**** >> >> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3**** >> >> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* piranna@gmail.com [mailto:piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:44 AM >> *To:* Zak Fenton >> *Cc:* public-html-media@w3.org >> *Subject:* Re: I strongly urge all supporters to reconsider the EME >> proposal. It is not in your best interests!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> +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. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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.**** >> >> Again, I strongly urge all involved parties to reconsider their support >> for this proposal.**** >> >> Yours sincerely,**** >> >> Zak Fenton.**** >> >> > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://wendy.seltzer.org/ +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 16:48:42 UTC