Re: Cory Doctorow: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards, says it's OK for your browser to say "I can't let you do that, Dave" [via Restricted Media Community Group]

On 04.10.2013 13:00, Karl Dubost wrote:
> In the DRM debate, finding a better thing is key. Some of us can try to change the international law about Intellectual Property and some are trying, but that's a tough fight. I think EME is not a good idea, but that's a negative argument. It doesn't create something.

I get your point, also that a discussion with all participants within 
the W3C is better than one without control outside of the W3C.

In order to find "a better thing", what would be the requirements of 
content owners towards content distributors and content players? (In a 
sidenote, I also see myself as a content owner when I buy content, not 
as a licensee. I own vinyl records and video tapes, so in my view 
ownership expands to MP3 and MPEG files as well.)

I'm afraid I don't see any compromise: Hollywood wants ultimate control 
over content, so do I over my devices. I cannot accept Hollywood to 
seize control over my graphic card and install blackbox software where I 
don't know what it does or if it calls home to Universal, Microsoft, or 
the NSA. Also the Internet is global, my devices are portable, so 
wherever I am, I want to access content that I bought, even when I'm in 
another zone of the planet than where I originally bought it.

Also I'm not convinced why we need a "Netflix standard". DRM in video 
will open pandora's box, with webfont creators following, prohibiting 
"view source" (that how many of us learned to develop websites), 
compilation of JavaScript (there should be no copyright on software 
because there is only a limited number of ways to express things; 
there's no threshold of originality) - in short, the end of the Open Web.

Thus I see these key requirements:
- DRM must never interfere with freedom of speech. Oppressive 
governments shouldn't be able to use DRM for censorship.
- Any DRM software/firmware must be Open Source. No backdoors. The W3C 
just leaning back saying "the browser is just middleware, what's 
happening in the hardware is not our concern" is inacceptable.
- Open Source is also imperative so that *anybody* can create compatible 
players, not just a few big companies who own patented software.
- DRM in HTML5 must respect the medium. A browser is moveable, not a 
static DVD player.
- DRM must never interfere with "view source".
- DRM must comply with international treaties and international or 
national copyright laws. They are currently negotiated (e.g. TTIP) or 
under development, so a definition in a standard is in my opinion premature.
- Feel free to add more.

The main problem IMHO isn't content protection, but how content is sold 
and distributed online. How could a standard replace a business model? 
Aren't we looking for a technical solution, when in fact the solution is 
not a technical issue?

Regarding international law, there will be a panel discussion at the 
European Parliament in Brussels on 15 October 2013 from 11 AM to 1 PM 
with participants from the European Parliament, the European Commission, 
Google (tbc), Mozilla (tbc), and Rigo Wenning for the W3C. (I'll post 
details and/or a URL as soon as I get them.)

DRM is a political issue, and no matter what any standardization 
committee does: when the European Commission decides it blocks core 
principles of consumer rights or the European free market, it has the 
power to force manufacturers into providing a choice (remember Microsoft?).

Cheers,
   Martin

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 17:17:20 UTC