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

On 2013/05/16 17:41, 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.



If I understand well this means that using this part of the "web spec" 
would exclude those who cannot afford it or those who are refused 
service by CDM vendors. Will it be possible for anyone to operate their 
own CDM without relying on 3rd parties ?

Perhaps this point has not been completely defined yet and it's too 
early to ask. However, my concern would be that this technology be only 
usable in exchange for money and/or with the cooperation of a 
"certified/authorised" 3rd party. If so it would exclude its possible 
usage to some.




> 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.



First, let me clarify that those terms were slightly humorous in 
relation to current events at the time I posted them. I never thought 
anyone would feel obliged to respect them in order to continue their 
visit (I even forgot they were there, this is a very low traffic site).


That said, I do personally think those points contain reason, they are 
more intended as a snack for ideas. I will edit the "terms" which 
probably only you read as first degree (in case anyone else does as 
well) to make thinks clearer. Thanks for your feedback.
:]



> You clearly believe it
> is reasonably to place these as conditions of access to your content.


Humour aside, my "restrictions" are not part of any open standard and 
most importantly, they are not enforced via a control over the visitor's 
computer.


And also, those terms, even if they were to be taken seriously, would 
allow anyone who agrees with the 3 points to make a copy of everything 
and re-publish/distribute/edit any content as long as they respect the 
content's license (by default CC-BY-NC-SA). The terms would be on the 
site's access, not the content itself.



> Why is it not reasonable for a content owner to require the use of DRM
> ?


I don't think I said that (perhaps I did?). I do recall saying that I 
don't oppose EME being developed outside the scope of the W3C.


That said, I do indeed think DRM is not reasonable. How could anyone 
have the pretension to want to control how a person views their content 
in their own personal space ? Is it reasonable for me to want to 
implement a system that would have deleted/edited the phrases you copy 
pasted from my site into your email ?  Where should the control stop ?


DRM goes far beyond reason as it treats the legitimate consumer as a 
threat.




-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 10:50:59 UTC