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 06:55 Mark Watson wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:28 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
> > On 2013-10-08 16:18 Mark Watson wrote:
> >> Because something is successful does not mean it's reasonable to demand
> >> that it be the only way. Other things can be successful too. All of the
> >> above models are great - I hope they all flourish.
> >> 
> >> But I also hope we can agree we should defer to the general population to
> >> decide what models they wish to patronize rather than proscribing from on
> >> high which are and are not "acceptable".
> > 
> > funny, that's exactly what DRM does
> 
> Not at all. DRM-protected services are offered as products to the
> general population and they can decide whether to accept them or not.
> This is what I mean. What you are asking is for a committee of
> unelected engineers to decide what is acceptable or not for the web.

DRM *requires* the hijacking of the the customer's computer, it's only by 
taking control of your customers computer that you can prevent him/her from 
using it for wat it was designed (manipulating bits, which includes the 
*possibillity* of copying).

Furthermore it can only works as long as the way you hijack the computer is 
secret, otherwise the hijacking could  be prevented/circumvented, which means 
it's possible to make copies again.

Saying 'that has no part in an open standard' really should not be 
controversial.

It also isn't 'deciding what is acceptable or not for the web' but deciding 
'what is acceptable or not in an open standard'

> >> In fact it's imperative that we do encourage as many
> >> different models as possible, because it is only through diversity and
> >> experimentation that we discover what works .
> > 
> > DRM attempts to prevent that: preventing non-sanctioned use (i.e.
> > experimentation) is the explicit goal of DRM
> 
> The different models listed were all
> different ways that the creators of content could offer it to the
> public.  Having technical solutions for DRM doesn't force any product
> offer to use them. All the other models can still be used by those to
> choose to.

> It is only you who is arguing that certain models should
> not be supported by the technology, not even available to content
> creators as an option on the web.

I've argued that:

a) that DRM has no place in an open standard (as fully functional 
implementations *require* access to the necessary info to be limited to the 
blessed few)

and

b) that the DRM model displays a fundamental disconnect with reality as it 
attempts to deny the basic nature of digital goods and general purpose 
computers and that's doomed to failure in the long run (as evidenced by the 
ever longer list of broken DRM systems)

The industry pouring resources down the DRM black hole is fine with me PROVIDED 
that they don't try to disguise that DRM as an supposedly open standard

In other words stop pretending the industry is interested in an open standard. 
For that to be the case you would need
1) full documentation of the DRM system *including* the CDM's, and
2) support for full interoperability of of the DRM system with 3th party 
implementations 

It's abundandly obvious the industry is not willing to do either let along 
both. Consequently EME is not an open standard, which means it has no place in 
W3C.
-- 
Cheers

Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 18:55:38 UTC