RE: Danger of DRM technologies stack

> From: john@foliot.ca
> To: fredandw@live.com; public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:44:29 -0800
> Subject: RE: Danger of DRM technologies stack
...
> 	"Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by saying that they
> cannot live with a decision."
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus 

The proponents of DRM are the 'dissenters'!

The contemporary open web does not have DRM components, and the dissenting path of DRM proponents will not change the path of the open web standards.

Perhaps you'll call us 'dissenter dissenters'!

If you accept that no group that wants change can have their work blocked then we'll just start a new group to add features to the EME that make it compatible with the contemporary operation of the open web - and you will have no basis to stop the work!
 
> Here's more:
> 
> 	"In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection
> to a decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the
> reviewer requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the
> related decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance a technical
> report). Note: In this document, the term "Formal Objection" is used to
> emphasize this process implication: Formal Objections receive Director
> consideration. The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English
> connotations.
> 
> 	An individual who registers a Formal Objection should cite technical
> arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection; these
> proposals may be vague or incomplete. Formal Objections that do not provide
> substantive arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious
> consideration by the Director."
> 
> I draw your attention to the second paragraph above, and specifically "...a
> Formal Objection should cite technical arguments..." - not philosophical
> arguments, but real Technical issues, since the W3C is not a philosophy
> club, it is a Technical Standards organization.

I though we had already agreed that the EME has no technical basis, and thus there could be no technical basis for objection.  The DRM proponents have refused to even define the requirements in technical terms that could be addressed in a technical manner - how convenient for them!

We'll just turn the tables, take over the group, vote down DRM, and leave the DRM proponents to file an objection that will have no technical basis as it's just a political matter!

Sorry, the open web can not accept a process that allows politically driven land grabs on open web features that can only be objected to on technical grounds.  If this prevails then a new group can simply add new features to EME the render it useless for DRM on a purely political agenda that can not be objected to on technical grounds!

The Director of the W3C has not defined DRM as being in scope, just content protection, and we can rewrite the EME to protect the content in transit.

> > 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.
> 
> Correct, and content that you can legally "save" should be save-able. 

Well, the working group has refused to add these features to EME!

> Content however that is leased to you on a per-consumption basis, and that
> you access contractually with those specific terms, should not be
> "save-able", because that was not part of the contract you entered into.
> That is the use-case: protecting the owners rights to content that they
> choose not to give away, but to lease, either as a direct 1-to-1 lease, or
> as part of a subscription model that provides controlled access to the
> content.

This is not a valid use case for the open web to address.  We can not technically address this matter in open systems.  There are laws and legal systems to address these 'use-cases'.  Parties transacting on the open web should have no expectation that open web technology enforces their specific terms - the open web browser is the users agent, it does what the user instructs.   Supply customers an appliance if you want to lock it down, and then you can dictate the feature set, which might be a subset of possible open web features.

> > 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.
... 
> As for your 10's of thousands of votes, I once again point to the W3C
> Process document:
> 
> 	"3.4 Votes
> 
> 	A group SHOULD only conduct a vote to resolve a substantive issue
> after the Chair has determined that all available means of reaching
> consensus through *technical* discussion and compromise have failed...
> [emphasis mine]
> 
> 	In order to vote to resolve a substantive issue, an individual MUST
> be a group participant in Good Standing. Each organization represented in
> the group MUST have *at most one vote*, even when the organization is
> represented by several participants in the group (including Invited
> Experts)... [emphasis mine]
> 
> 	Unless the charter states otherwise, Invited Experts MAY vote."
> 
> That final sentence is important Fred - it states that Invited Experts MAY
> (RFC 2119) vote, but if it appears that gerrymandering is underfoot the
> Chairs might also rule that either a) those new Invited Experts are all
> members of the same organization (vote stacking) and thus afforded 1 vote,
> or that b) in this case Invited Experts cannot vote, that voting will be
> limited to member organizations only. 
> 
> I'm not saying that this is what WILL happen, but either scenario is both
> possible, and plausible, especially if it appears that there are attempts to
> "game the vote". This is not a stupid organization Fred. 

I doubt we will have trouble finding enough voters representing themselves - do you?

The W3C have made it clear that they are not working on DRM so there should be no basis to reject invited experts with voting rights that want to rework the EME to address other content protection models!

> > 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.  
> 
> Once again, be very careful who you claim to speak for, as I do not share
> the same extremist views as you.

I believe my view is the majority view, not an extreme view.  Perhaps it will take a vote for you to appreciate this and respect the views of others.  Just take a look at the EME FPWD CfC!

> > 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. 
> 
> Double HUH??? All standards are politically and commercially driven.  The
> entire FOSS concept is, at its heart, a "commercially driven" decision, by
> using and sharing via *Free License* software - the argument being that
> value should be attached to the outcome produced by tools, and not from the
> tools themselves. One need only point to Red Hat as an organization that
> uses one of the most public and well known Open Source projects out there
> (Linux) and then charging for "services" clustered around that tool.

Just politics now?  No technical basis!

There are significant security issues in web technology, and in this and day and age I don't believe even you would really feel secure using a closed system.  Think of the legacy you are championing to hand on to the next generation - closed computers that they do not control and that are surely compromised by state actors!

> > 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. 
> 
> ...and clearly you have already been mislead: mislead on how the W3C works,
> why it exists in the first place, and on the means and methods of affecting
> change within the Consortium. For that I am truly sad, but it does not
> change the fact that you appear to me to be very misinformed about a lot of
> the Process under which this debate keeps circling around.

Or perhaps you just have a biased view of how the W3C works.  The EME is a significant matter and the operation of the W3C on this matter needs to be tested.

> > 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.

...

> > This is not relevant to the matter of the EME being worked on at the W3C
> > in parallel with open web technology.
> 
> Of course it is Fred. It is those businesses, who have gathered at the W3C,
> who have paid their yearly membership that funds the work of the W3C, and
> supplied engineers to work on shared goals, who care about this work. This
> is not a religious order, it is a standards organization supported by
> academia, governments, and yes, business. If members of this Consortium wish
> to work together on a shared standard, then it becomes very relevant. 
> 
> The fact that members of the general public have concerns and hesitations
> around a particular aspect of this work is also relevant, but it is not (nor
> should it be) enough to stop this work: the W3C provides the forum to
> surface those concerns, and to hear them out and weigh their merits, in an
> effort to *improve* the Standard, not scuttle it. Nothing more, but nothing
> less: stamping your feet and demanding more will not change any of these
> facts.

You may be right, but I do not believe the W3C does enough to make this clear, which would mislead the public.

Then again, you may be wrong, we need to test this.

The EME is not labeled as a paid publication that is the product of a closed group that does not represent the views of the open web community - we need to test.

cheers
Fred