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 2013/10/09 01:21, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> 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).


Flash has been around for over a decade, almost every browser had it 
installed at some point. It was never part of the W3C spec. Same for 
other plugins.

I'm glad you see my point, I can see yours. I just think the label needs 
to mean something for it to have a purpose.


>> 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?


Indeed, they do not use any form of DRM. What they do is they trust 
their users to make use of the images they are granted access to.

iStock and others will display low quality images with watermarks, until 
the client purchases the image. The client is then given access to the 
image at the quality they paid for with no watermarking and zero DRM. 
The client may have purchased the right to use the image for only the 
web, paper, both, 1 time, any time, etc etc. There is no DRM to enforce 
that.

This is what I, and many others before me, have argued should be the 
model for media businesses.


Back to the DRM for images, if the W3C accepts DRM for videos it will 
set a precedence and there would be no logical reason to refuse DRM for 
anything else. Those interested in this would have to work on a spec and 
get it approved and so on, just like with EME. If it works like EME, or 
better yet, makes use of EME and CDMs, it could simply extend the 
functionality making it possible to protect anything enclosed in an HTML 
tag.



> 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.


This is true and false.

Every image you see online is copyable. The solution people have found, 
if they don't want people using their images, is to publish low quality 
versions and/or to watermark everything. For now, it works. A 1024x768 
sized image renders well on a screen (only 72dpi), but you can't really 
print such an image, even at postcard size it would be very dirty.

With higher resolution screens making their way, the demand for higher 
quality images in websites will become the norm. 1024x768 will start to 
look too small and/or pixelated.

Also, Flash cannot prevent a user from making screenshots. Perhaps EME 
will be able to do so if it's on a closed operating system.



[...]
> 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).


This is another reason why I oppose EME, it makes part of the W3C 
specification available only to those with connections and/or money. 
 From what I understand, this goes against the W3C's principles. Anyway, 
I've said this many times over, but it doesn't seem to bother too many.

The trick is that it's the CDMs that cost, not EME. CDMs are not part of 
the standard. EME has absolutely no functionality without CDMs.



>>> (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.

Interestingly, there's a script that allows users to download content 
from the public service station (BBC), I used to use it because I 
couldn't use their in-browser player (it lagged on my old computer). I 
sometimes re-encoded the videos for use on other older devices. I also 
erased the files once I had watched them. Even full length movies.

This is what the business model should be.

If Netflix or other was available in this way I would probably be a 
subscriber. I would have the assurance that I will always be able to 
play the file on my system, even on my 10 year old Palm. With DRM, it's 
just never going to happen for me, I know people like me are too few to 
have any commercial effect.


>> 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.


I tend to think that if/when EME is the norm, they will not change for a 
trust based business, at least not in the next decade. For one, they'd 
have to justify all the money put in to CDMs (Browser, OS, Hardware). 
This is a "time will tell" thing so... we'll see.



> 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.


Thank you Alastair. It's been refreshing.
: ]



> 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.


On this point I'm yes and no and maybe (not in that order).


The weight behind the bigger content publishers could mean that a better 
solution could be discarded.

At the same time, there are others, as mentioned by cobaco; Louis CK 
(huge fan, I generally put on weight when I watch his shows), and a few 
others (known through big media as well as alternative media, in video 
and audio formats) are proving that non-DRM based distribution can work.

Perhaps the real key to open web standards that sticks to healthy 
principles with content publishers that accept to publish without 
requiring control would be for users to have a better understanding of 
the Internet in general.


Cheers,


-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 10:42:54 UTC