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

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:

> Le lun. 20/05/13, 08:49, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On May 20, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Le lun. 20/05/13, 08:00, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
> > >> Second, I addressed the idea that this is an affront to ordinary users
> > >> earlier in the thread. Modest security measures are not generally
> > >> considered an affront even when they are inconvenient to ordinary
> > >> users. Users understand that there are a minority of people who want
> > >> to get stuff without paying. Now, you can reasonably argue that the
> > >> measures are disproportionate to the threat. There are plenty of
> > >> examples where people go too far with security measures, causing too
> > >> much inconvenience to those who are not in fact a threat. But it makes
> > >> no sense in such cases to argue that, therefore, there should be no
> > >> security measures.
> > >
> > > This is not about a minority of users who want to get stuff
> > > without paying. This is not about security either. This is about
> > > who controls what, this is about freedom. Not about the freedom to
> > > do whatever you like and get away with it for free; but the
> > > freedom of a person to act responsibly and to control their own
> > > computing.
> >
> > And no one is taking that away. Should I not also have the freedom to
> > give up a little bit of control of what my computer does with some
> > specific data at a specific time and in a specifically constrained way
> > if I am offered something in return ? Or would you have it that people
> > are forbidden from offering or forbidden from accepting such a deal ?
> > What about if the service performs financial transactions, but only if
> > I agree to have some trusted module on my computer ? Is that about
> > freedom too ?
>
> That is not what this discussion is about. You are free to give up
> your control on your computer. But a W3C specification should not
> make users give up on this (the specification is designed to work
> for proprietary CDMs, so the argument that the CDM are "outside"
> of the spec is not relevant).
>
> > Yes, I agree there are some more subtle issues at play and I described
> > one balance of different public interests in another mail, but please,
> > let's get away from this idea that anyone is losing some fundamental
> > freedom of action here. No one who does not wish to has to install
> > DRM.
>
> Of course, but having a recommendation and a W3C specification is
> making this a whole other debate. This is about the “open web” and
> I don't see how this is compatible with making users install
> proprietary software or requiring them to use specific
> platforms/hardware.
>

Perhaps I am missing something, but how does EME "make" or "require" users
to install proprietary software ? EME is *optional*, for browsers, for
websites, for users.


> > >
> > > The fact is, with EME, users are not free any more: the CDM
> > > controls what they can do; and the CDM can claim to have more
> > > power than copyright-holders are legally entitled to.
> >
> > Are you claiming that the terms of service of some or all services
> > that require DRM are illegal ? I would think that could be taken up in
> > the courts.
>
> Whether specific DRM and terms of service are illegal or not is
> an interesting question. The answers vary from jurisdictions. (I
> actually work on terms of service of online services, and yes I
> often find clauses which are not enforceable in some European
> jurisdictions, but challenging them in court is a very different
> matter).
>
> > As I said in my previous mail, clearly there is a public interest in
> > ensuring the limitations of copyright actually apply in practice, but
> > this is a complex legal and public policy issue, which is the subject
> > of ongoing public debate and it can't be reduced to simple statements
> > about freedom. The EME proposal is not about that, it is just about
> > making DRM *as it is used on the web today* simpler and more
> > transparent.
>
> Yes, this is a legal and public policy issue.


I said *copyright* was a legal and public policy issue.


> So this is not just
> about making DRM simpler and more transparent;


That's exactly what EME is about.


> because DRM also
> bear on more fundamental issues which are not merely technical.
> You cannot disconnect them.
>

I don't really see why making progress on the technical and transparency
aspects impacts any wider discussions.


>
> --
> Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org
> FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal
> FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/
>
> Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support
>