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]

Emmanuel Revah wrote:

> It is not because the industry wants to move away from X solution that
> "we" must provide an alternative.
>

> I understand that Flash and Silverlight is not working out for them.
> Meanwhile open web standards has progressed, among many things, they
> introduced audio/video tags and it's beautiful. I don't care to see
> corporate needs spoil this, and it will.
>

I would argue it already has. There doesn't need to be a spec for companies
to extend the video element, EME-like code is already in Chrome, IE, and
Chromecast.

It will just take a little time for more content-providers to catch up.
Netlfix and Hulu have already got there (I assume).

I'm not saying "we" have to provide an alternative, I'm say someone,
anyone(!) must provide an alternative to prevent that roll-out from
continuing.



> There will also be demand to protect other forms of content, like images,
> texts and anything really, why shouldn't there be ?


Three reasons I can think of:
1. Images, text, fonts etc already have open solutions. Apart from illegal
torrents, the content EME aims to protect is not available through the
'open web'.
2. Few members at the W3C have an interest in doing that.
3. Overhead. Providing a CDM is not trivial, so a site that provides HD
images is unlikely to be able to create an ecosystem with the hardware/OS
level integration needed to enable this.

I'm fairly new to the W3C (as a member organisation) but I haven't seen any
wish to extend EME to other content types. I (an AC rep) would vote and
fight against extending it in that manner.


The argument that DRM is commercially accepted is not a valid one. Most
> users don't have a clue about what's going on. I've recently given mini
> talks about "how the Internet works" and realised that even well educated
> people had zero clues about what happens beyond their own screen. I really
> mean ZERO clues.
>
> "We" can't expect everyone to understand everything, of course, but "we"
> shouldn't take advantage of that either. If we do, we break the trust.
>

I generally agree with that, except that a commercially accepted solution
is needed, and there isn't a viable alternative.


Those who say yes say "because it's better than Flash" or "If there's going
> to be DRM it might as well be in the spec".
>

I would say "If there's going to be DRM running through the HTML5 video
element anyway, it would be better specced openly and through the W3C
process."


The most honest EME proponent must weigh the benefits of bringing big media
> to the web and the security/privacy/openness of the user and the web. In
> the end, to be pro EME is to believe that it is more important, even if by
> a hair, than keeping the W3C's standards truly open (and accessible,
> trustworthy, etc etc).


I don't see it as "bringing big media to the web". Big media is on the web,
it's just paid-for content that was not using web-native technologies. Not
they are starting to.

I do put user-needs first, I work in usability & accessibility.

I do take your point that we should know better and protect users in this
step of the war on general purpose computing. However, the majority of
users want the content big-media provides, and don't care enough about the
DRM issue to avoid it. In this way market forces are pro-DRM and there is
no alternative that meets the user needs (get the content) and media
requirement (protect the content). Yet.



>  2. Is there a better alternative that the content-producers will
>> accept?
>
>
> Again, I think this question is unhealthy. It's the same question as the
> previous one. These questions insinuate that the community owes the
> movie/tv/music industry a technical solution within the W3C standards, even
> if it bends the rules.
>

Perhaps it is unhealthy, but it's practical and necessary. I'm not saying
anyone owes the industry a solution, but if we don't want DRM as the
solution there has to be an alternative. Currently there isn't one.


Is it possible to create a DRM system that does not require users to run
> vendor software on their systems ?
>

No. At least, that is my understanding of the theory and practice of DRM.
When I say alternative, I mean a new business model that doesn't require
DRM, not a new form of DRM.

-Alastair