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

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2013/05/15 17:36, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> My IMHO is that this should be done outside the scope of the W3C. Some say
> it's the same thing, but it's not. Having DRM in the scope of the W3C means
> the W3C has something more to worry about, it also means that any W3C
> respecting browser should support it too, which in turn means telling it's
> users that it's okay to install the non-free bits that websites may propose.
>

The idea is not that each website request users to install a different CDM,
but that browser vendors decide to integrate with one or more (but
hopefully a very small number) of CDMs and websites pick from that list.
It's explicitly intended that it's websites that should adapt to a mix of
CDMs out there, not users or browsers that should adapt to a mix of website
requirements. [Hence the idea of a common interaction and key exchange
model and common encryption across all CDMs].


>
>
> We understand that that all those proprietary plugins that allow you to
> DRM your content are all dying. Because web standards have proven to be
> sustainable and cross platform (except with IE, though I heard it's almost
> compliant), it's only logical that you (Google, MS, Netflix and others)
> look this way for a future proof solution. I get that, 100%, even if I
> don't like it.
>
>
> What has made the web so popular was the absence of restriction. The web
> is built around sharing knowledge (and cat photos), everything is a remix
> of something else, including this phrase. Now that the Interweb has proven
> to be a good place for commerce walls being built, and now content needs to
> be as unsharable as can be. Having EME in the spec is likely to encourage
> more content producers to restrict access. (Is disabling "right-click copy"
> going to be part of all this ?).
>

The costs of deploying DRM on the content distributer side remain
significant. I doubt the difference EME makes will weigh heavily on
anyone's decision to use DRM or not.


>
> So yes, there are ethical and moral reasons to object to EME, and of
> course we wont always agree.
>
>
> There are also pure technical reasons to think of EME as a waste of time,
> as in that it's already broken. Users will be able to record the streams
> with a simple plugin.


Unlikely in the case that the media pipeline is fully protected.


> Because there's no such thing as streaming content to a user's computer
> and that computer not being able to easily record the stream (except
> perhaps on one of those CloudOSes where the user does not have access to
> the computer). This part is of course debatable and much effort will be
> spent (lost) in trying to make an unbreakable blackbox.
>

No, noone is under any illusion that some form of the content can be copied
with some effort. You can use an HDCP ripper for anything using HDCP 1.4.


>
> The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle, as in some user's still
> can't figure out how to copy text on "JS protected" websites, while others
> can download any video with a single click using a plugin.
>
>
> There are other technical concerns I've mentioned in other posts like CDM
> trust issues, Free/Open source incompatibilities and some other ethical
> concerns about default in-browser CDMs which would favour certain content
> over other.
>
> I've yet to find answers for the last questions, except for the Free
> Software/Open source question, that we know is plain and simple not
> technically possible.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>

I notice that by the mere act of visiting your site you deem me to have
agreed to some rather restrictive terms (one of which I do happen to agree
to). And yet those very terms dispute the right of others to place far less
imposing conditions on the users of their creative works. Interesting ...