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 Oct 4, 2013, at 10:16 , Martin Kliehm <w3c@kliehm.com> wrote:

> 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.

I think you need to be much more specific than "ultimate control", which is a bit sweeping.  The content owners (not all of whom live in Hollywood or even the USA) want to "increase friction" for copying. When content was, for example, on LPs, it was quite hard for people to make copies.  Now, it's very easy -- too easy, in their minds. They want (not unreasonably) people who enjoy the content that they created for sale, to pay for it.

> 
> Also I'm not convinced why we need a "Netflix standard". DRM in video will open pandora's box, with webfont creators following,

There was a long debate about this with webfonts;  there, we managed to find a different technical solution (which is in the process of being tried).

> 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.

There is, alas, plenty of fairly unreadable Javascript out there.

> 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.

I don't see the connection.  Censorship is about preventing publication, not about restricting dissemination.

> - 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.

Do you have even a rough suggestion of how this can work?  The only effort I know of was the Sun Open Media Commons.

> - Open Source is also imperative so that *anybody* can create compatible players, not just a few big companies who own patented software.

If I can create a player, I can create a copier.  How do you avoid that?

> - DRM in HTML5 must respect the medium. A browser is moveable, not a static DVD player.

I don't follow.

> - DRM must never interfere with "view source".

Good luck with viewing the source of video or audio.

> - 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.

International copyright is for the most part pretty settled.

> - Feel free to add more.

I am astonished you don't mention linkability, fair use, the right to control your own artistic creations, the right to be remunerated for your creative work.

> 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?

Well, the W3C is a technical body.  Policy questions are down the hallway…

> 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?).


It is not just a political issue, or just a technical one, alas.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 21:22:46 UTC