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

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> Mark, thanks for replying inline, it is appreciated.
>
>
>
> On 2013/05/15 19:07, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>  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.
>>
>
>
> Would this be comparable to how SSL certificate signatures are currently
> verified ? As in the Browser includes certain Root CAs (in the future
> certain CDMs) which means for most sites the user needn't install anything
> extra.  Also, would this mean, as with SSL, that website operators must
> acquire a key from the CDM of their choice ?
>
>
>
Very roughly, yes. In the sense that a website operator must work with the
CDM vendor to be able to authenticate the client CDMs and construct
licenses for them. Whether this involves certificates and CAs specifically
depends on the CDM design (it can also all be done with secret symmetric
keys). Whether it involves some real-time b2b service or whether the
website operator purchases or licenses technology to operate in house is
also generally open.


>
>
>  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.
>>
>
>
> For me the real question isn't about "same-ish costs" between Flash DRM
> and EME DRM. The question is:
>
> Will those who wish to use the EME part of the W3C specifications be
> required to spend money on keys and/or require the collaboration (active or
> passive) of a 3rd party ?


To use CDMs based on the existing DRM systems, AFAIK those are not free. So
yes.


>
>
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
>
> Time will tell. But heck, EME could be the first such system to actually
> work. If so, I'll give you a tip of my hat (after obtaining one).
>

So, again, it's not black and white. Of course any system can be broken.
All I said is that it's unlikely to be as simple as downloading a plugin
for the case of a hardware protected media pipeline.


>
>
>
>  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 ...
>>
>
>
> Are you comparing the CC-BY-NC-SA license with the concept of total
> control over one's content on a visitor's browser ?  I must be missing
> something, I may be a bit slow. Please explain further.


>From your site:

*Important note* - By viewing the content of this website you agree to the
following:

   - Copy is right
   - Free speech and privacy are not up for debate
   - Non Free software is evil


For the record I do not agree to the third of these, nor to the first if it
means what I think it means (all copying is morally justified). These are
huge and far-reaching propositions. You clearly believe it is reasonably to
place these as conditions of access to your content. Why is it not
reasonable for a content owner to require the use of DRM ?

...Mark


>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>
>