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:

> The problem is that by EME being a part of the W3C spec it de-valuates it.
> A bit like if a GMO crop obtained an organic certification (maybe because a
> lot of people like the product). This is essentially what is happening
> here, a label known to represent certain values is accepting things outside
> of those values, because "it's good for business" or some other
> unacceptable reason.
>
...

> To clarify what I meant: not only do "we" not have to provide an
> alternative, not a single person has the duty to find an alternative. There
> is no person in the universe who must provide an alternative to prevent EME
> from being a W3C standard.

...
and later:

> Just don't give it an "open and accessible web for all" label.
>

Ok, I see that and agree to some extent. But I balance that against a more
interoperable and accessible result (that we have to live with until
business models move on).



> What open solutions do I have for my photos ? I haven't heard of it, I'd
> actually be interested in this.
>

I'm not sure what you mean? I meant that people sell photos without a W3C
spec that incorporates DRM. iStockphoto, Smugmug to name a couple. I'm not
sure if they use DRM in any form? I think watermarking might be used?

The business dynamic is very different there, the cost per item is *hugely*
different, and the complexity of serving images vs movies is also very
different.

My point is that they are successful businesses that have proved they don't
need DRM to protect their content, so the motivation is not sufficient to
work on DRM.
If it was, presumably they would serve their content through Flash or an
app that prevents screen shots? That is the lengths that movie studios have
gone to, and we don't see that elsewhere.


2. Few members at the W3C have an interest in doing that.
>>
>
> That's not a reason, all you need is for member at the W3C to suddenly
> want to do that, or for members who want such a thing to exist to join the
> W3C. It's not like many members of the W3C always wanted EME.


I think David answered that.


CDMs also have overhead when dealing with videos, so I guess that overhead
> itself is not a reason.


I think you underestimate that, in order for people to have a CDM available
it needs to be in the browser, OS or hardware. You'd need an agreement with
someone like MS or a browser maker to have it available to a significant
number of users.

Studios have that sort of clout, I don't see others with a similar demand
for their content (per item).


(I'm not part of a business that would profit with or without EME).
>
>
Not am I. For full disclosure I should say that my company has done work
for a couple of British broadcasters that uses Flash media players online,
but it doesn't affect our work.



> How about a business model that delivers content to authenticated users
> over an encrypted channel (https) and then asks the users to not put the
> stuff on p2p because then the business would fail and they wouldn't have
> this service that makes life much easier and safer and faster than using
> p2p ?


I agree, that's just the sort of business model I hope takes off. However,
in the next 2-5 years I would like the best solution for mainstream movies.
If it goes through the W3C process it gets checked by accessibility experts
(the PF group in this case I think), so aspects such as captions get
properly considered, as well as general interoperability.

Thanks for the reasoned debate Emmanuel, I don't think we are that far
apart in opinion. I generally agree with your principles. I just have a
more pragmatic (lower?) view about what the W3C stands for and what the
results over the next few years would be if EME is part of the W3C process,
compared to it not be standardised as well.

I also agree with Mark's comment about different business models needing to
flourish so we see experimentation, more competition, and hopefully
something that will take off and make this DRM discussion irrelevant.

-Alastair