RE: Danger of DRM technologies stack

> From: john@foliot.ca
> To: fredandw@live.com; dhgbayne@fastmail.fm; public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:25:14 -0800
> Subject: RE: Danger of DRM technologies stack
> 
> Fred Andrews writes:
> >
> > Satisfying the use-cases is completely irrelevant.  We do not want the
> > EME in its current form and would prefer the work to stop.  We will vote
> > to this end and we have the numbers.   The proponents of the EME are
> > welcome to publish their work elsewhere, but please do not attempt to
> > pass it off as the work of the open web community.
> 
> Fred, do you even understand how the W3C works? From your statements above I
> am seriously concerned that you do not.

Please quit the personal insults.

The W3C would appear to be sending a very mixed and confusing message to the public regarding its processes and what it sands for.
 
> Satisfying the use-cases is exactly the reason why engineers gather at the
> W3C to work on technologies together. You cannot just "ignore" the use-cases
> because you don't like them: they exist with or without your approval.  I am
> not sure who this "we" is you are referring to (outside of a number of vocal
> opponents such as yourself), and I personally have never heard of a "vote"
> over technical standards at the W3C, nor (AFAIK) a public vote over a W3C
> Recommendation - once again, you can use W3C Recommendations or not use them
> - they have no legal binding, and implementers are free to adopt or not
> adopt any standard published by the W3C. 

The EME is an anti-feature.  The proponents can only succeed by blocking 'features'.

Let's assume we accept that 'You cannot just "ignore" the use-cases', then it would be equally true that the proponents of the EME can not ignore use-cases such as saving content etc.

Jeff has already stated that anyone is free to join the working group, and there are 10000+ people who will likely do so to vote this down - sorry you do not have the numbers.  If the W3C refuses the accept these votes then it should stop claiming it represents the open web community.
 
> This is a political debate, not an engineering one. The technology DOES
> exist, it IS being implemented and shipped (today), and this work is
> happening in a Consortium of engineers and their companies, under what I and
> others believe is the best of many possible scenarios. If you want to
> eliminate DRM, go tell the politicians, not the engineers, because AFAIK
> what is happening today is perfectly legal, lawful and accepted by many
> (perhaps even the majority) as not unreasonable. (Put another way: I am
> opposed to lax or non-existent gun-laws, but the solution is to not try and
> stop R&D at the gun-makers, but rather to go after the politicians to effect
> that change.)

I agree that the EME is politics.  The open web community does not endorse it and does not want it passed off as the work of the open web community.   Just take it elsewhere to avoid confusing the public and misrepresenting us.  The least that the W3C could do is to not publish it as part of the HTML working group, and to clearly document it as a politically and commercially driven publication.  It should not be going though public CfCs etc as an open web spec because this would have a good chance of misleading the public.  The proponents should never be in a position to be able to claim that the EME is in any way associated with the open web community.
 
> The fact of the matter is that browsers are already implementing EME, and if
> you really want to stop them, then go vote at Google or Microsoft: purchase
> shares of those companies and make EME a point at the annual share-holders
> meetings if you want to vote somewhere. On my open web however, you don't
> need somebody else's permission to do something, that's the beauty of the
> web being truly open.

This is not relevant to the matter of the EME being worked on at the W3C in parallel with open web technology.

cheers
Fred