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

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>> "I am still not sure what advantage to users comes from having EME worked
>> on outside W3C, or simply becoming a de facto standard, compared to a W3C
>> recommendation."
>>
>> The point that is trying to be made here is that it is not benefiting
>> users at all to have EME or DRM.
>>
>
> > I understand this opinion. On the other hand, with EME/DRM users get
> access to a certain class of content they might not otherwise have >access
> to, which is clearly a benefit. Whatever your opinion on that is, my
> question still stands.
>
>
> There is no technical limitation locking up this content and keeping it
> from the users, it is quite the contrary.
>

Sure, the source of the limitation is not technical, it's the choice of the
seller.


> Allowing EME to become a W3C standard sets a bad precedent. It opens the
> door for future Digital Restrictions Management schemes. What goes in as a
> W3C standard should be a benefit to the users and not large companies.
>
>
>> It is benefiting the copyright holders' interests and nothing more.
>>
>
> >So it is not in the users interest to have a solution which has gone
> through an open privacy, security and accessibility review, which is
> >compatible across browsers and where some pressure has been brought to
> bear to enable support in open source browsers ? None of those >things
> benefit users ?
>
> Those things are all fine and in the users interests up until you insert
> Digital Restrictions Management into it. It seems though that HTML5 already
> addresses all of the things that you're listing above.
>

We're not "inserting" DRM, it's already there (in the form of plugins).
We're talking about improving on the present situation as it exists in the
real world, not comparing with some theoretical world where content owners
have totally different requirements.


>
> The W3C exists to make things accessible, available and open to everyone.
>> EME is just a gate to making things closed to users.
>>
>
> >No, it is *without* EME that certain content is closed to users (by
> choice of the seller, yes, but nevertheless closed). For example, Linux
> systems >do not have EME/DRM today and those users are frequently pointing
> out that they do not have access to the same set of content that users of
> >other operating systems do.
>
> Those users are not asking for Digital Restrictions Management either,
> they're asking for the content. Many of those users are more than happy to
> pay for access to the content without Digital Restrictions Management.
>

Do you have evidence for that statement ? I'm not sure how you could, since
you don't have information about what the price would be without DRM, or
indeed what the effect would be on the availability and creation of content.


> Some of those users aren't going to know the difference and it is for
> those people and the people who DO know that I'm speaking up for. Big
> content providers are the ones keeping them from accessing that. It's not a
> technical limitation. Besides, copyright already over-protects the content.
>
> The argument that this makes "premium" content more accessible to everyone
>> is a farce. If you wanted it more accessible for everyone it would not be
>> necessary to use Digital Restrictions Management. Putting a lock and a
>> paywall in front of the content and then adding a nice new shiny super
>> highway to get there only benefits the copyright holders because it gets
>> more people funnelled to them. Once they're there, the only option they
>> have is to play the game of dealing in non-free software and digital
>> restrictions management.
>>
>
> >The paywall is not going away. Nobody is going to start giving away
> content that costs $100Ms to produce without payment. Whether there >needs
> to be a lock is a judgement for the seller, as I keep saying. This is the
> reality and it is a commercial reality outside W3C control. Yes, you >are
> right, making it simpler and more convenient for users to legally view
> content will bring more users (legally) to the content. I think this is
> >something which everyone agrees on. Typically, everyone also agrees that
> making things simpler and more convenient for users is a good >thing, but
> we have an interesting situation here where there is opposition to
> improving the user experience (presumably, either because it is not
> >improving the user experience enough, or because keeping the user
> experience bad furthers some other goal).
>
> No one is arguing that the bills don't need paid. At what point is the
> content paid for though? I'm pretty sure that movie studios are still in
> business even though they claim that copyright infringement has cost them
> money.  Industries change. Do you think people made a lot of money on horse
> carriages after the automobile was made affordable?
>

We addressed the claim that there is somehow a new and disruptive business
model here that ought to sweep away the old earlier in this thread. There
is nothing new in terms of business models here. Outright sale of ownership
rights, rental and subscription have all been around for centuries. The
fact that the marginal cost of distribution is falling doesn't have huge
relevance for the business models.


>
> Locking the content is up to the seller and should be up to the seller but
> building a platform into a public standard just to give these content
> providers a place to pedal their wares shouldn't be a priority for the W3C.
> Let them(content providers) solve the problem and keep web standards free
> of DRM.
>

So, again, what is the advantage to users of this approach. Why is it
better for users to have de facto solutions compared to standardizing the
modest aspects we propose ?


> You can argue that this is going to be "open" but at some point it gets
> locked and providing a hook for that lock in HTML is not in the users
> interest. Again, copyright protects these works already. A user should be
> able to view their movie or listen to their music in whatever software they
> choose, on whatever device they choose. Once they've paid to view the
> content, if they're following copyright law there should be no further
> restrictions.
>

So, what about a subscription service like Netflix ? Once I'm a subscriber
I'm entitled to view the content. Should I be able to make a copy to play
back later, after my subscription expires ?


> Also, regardless of the privacy that's put into the standard, we all know
> that content providers are going to track every play, pause and fast
> forward of every single user if they're given the chance. What's to stop
> them from injecting advertisements and other restrictions beyond what is
> being discussed here?
>

And if they do, what's to stop customers expressing their displeasure in
the usual time-honored way ? What's wrong with adverts anyway ? Broadcast
TV has been funded by adverts for decades. Personally, I don't like them
and so I choose services where I pay with money instead of paying with time
spent watching ads. I would really object to someone taking that choice
away, but I don't at all object to others producing or consuming services
with ads. Some people prefer to pay with time.


>
>>
>> Users currently have the option of dealing with the non-free DRM content
>> with plugins. It's not great because in order to view a film or a show they
>> would have to use non-free software and agree to the Digital Restrictions
>> Management. But it is not a standard and it is a big choice for small
>> content providers to put DRM on the content.
>>
>
> >It would remain a big choice, since there are many things needed on the
> server side to enable DRM.
>
> I'm sure that with EME there are many non-free pieces that will have to be
> jammed into a free system to make the DRM work as you would like. Again,
> this is just putting the interests of big content providers ahead of users.
> In the long run this is a scheme to keep profit margins high.
>
> If this is a standard it is going to encourage more people to
>> unnecessarily put their content into DRM.
>>
>
> >I agree that unnecessarily putting content into DRM should not be
> encouraged. Let's think about whether EME actually does that for a moment.
> >The proposition is that a content provider presently not using DRM would
> begin to do so because this is made easier by W3C-standardized >EME. That
> is, they haven't used DRM to date because the costs would be greater than
> whatever they believe they are losing by not having DRM. >So, either
> W3C-standardized EME-based DRM needs to be substantially cheaper, or it
> needs to work substantially better than previous DRMs at >reducing those
> losses.
>
> >It's unlikely to be substantially cheaper to deploy, first because most
> of the costs are independent of any of the browser-side things addressed by
> >EME and second because something like EME is going to happen anyway.
> Standardizing it will not make it much cheaper.
>
> >And, it's unlikely to work substantially better at reducing losses,
> except in the one area of platform compatibility and user experience. But
> those >losses are small compared to the amount the existing users of DRM
> believe they would lose to piracy without DRM. Our putative >non-DRM-using
> content provider already knows what the non-DRM world looks like and it
> presumably isn't so bad for them (otherwise they >would already be using
> DRM): the big benefit existing DRM users believe they get probably doesn't
> apply to this provider.
>
> You are assuming that every person that violates copyright law in order to
> view or listen to content would have actually bought a copy.
>

I'm not assuming that at all. What makes you think that ?


> This is ridiculous. All DRM does is treat everyone like a criminal. One
> thing you've illustrated here to me is that it IS all about the bottom line
> for content providers and publishers. If they've weighed the costs then
> they've made a calculated decision to go against user freedoms. In the
> grand scheme of things this IS for the content providers and you've just
> made that clear. I'd also like you to read the post by Mr. Corey Doctorow.
> He has many good points that show why it's not a good idea to put Digital
> Restrictions Management into the Web Standards.
>

I've read the post and many others. I think we've touched on many of the
arguments in this thread.

Clearly, obviously, many content providers believe they need DRM in order
to operate their business. Noone is saying otherwise.

A completely different question than why content providers believe they
need DRM is why W3C should care about EME ? IMO, that is a much more modest
question about the technical approach that will be best for users. It's
completely clear that some people here think the content providers belief
in DRM is mis-placed. That they would be fine without it. That may be true,
but I believe that's a decision for those whose business is on the line,
who are accountable to investors, shareholders and employees. Everyone else
has a chance to influence that decision in their role as customers or
indeed through public policy where appropriate.


>
> This will make the web and media less open. As a whole big content
>> companies are going to benefit but not the users.
>>
>
> >Please explain why you think this is the case. I have explained in some
> detail why I think in practice EME will benefit users compared to what
> >would happen if W3C did nothing. The extent to which media is protected by
> DRM on the web will not change significantly as a result of >accepting or
> rejecting this proposal.
>
> How can you be so sure that the extent that media is restricted by DRM on
> the web will not change? I'll bet you can produce more proof of how much
> content providers profits will go up than you can of how much the use of
> DRM is going to fluctuate because that is not in big content providers
> interests.
>

Of course you are right I cannot be sure. I don't have a crystal ball and
neither does anyone else. But there are no good reasons to expect that
standardization of EME by W3C will have a significant effect on the amount
of DRM-restricted media or, indeed, on content providers profits.

...Mark


>
> --
> /* Free software is a matter of liberty not price.
>     Visit www.GNU.org * www.FSF.org * www.trisquel.info */
>