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

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

The specification doesn't define particular CDMs. I understand some believe
this point to be a technicality, but generally what is and is not included
in a specification is viewed as being of some modest import.

Browsers are free to supports CDMs that are free (in whatever sense is
important to you). But for reasons that have nothing to do with EME, DRM
systems that are acceptable to studios today are unlikely to be made
available without cost (at least until various patents expire). I don't see
how that fact has any bearing on whether EME should be specified or not -
it remains true and affects everyone in the same way with or without EME.


>
>
>
>
>  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 ?


It's not pretension if the user has been asked first whether they agree to
some restrictions and they do agree.


> 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 ?


If you wanted to make my use of an editor with that capability a condition
of viewing your site, I don't see why you shouldn't be free to ask that of
me. You created the content, you are free to decide how to license it. I
may then decide whether or not agreeing to that restriction is a reasonably
price for me to pay for access to the content.


>  Where should the control stop ?
>

You're free to propose any terms you choose (within the law). Nothing is
being imposed on anyone here. It's a contract that requires both an offer
and acceptance.


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


Do you also think that RFID tag detectors at the doors of stores treat
legitimate shoppers as a threat ?

...Mark


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