- From: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:56:16 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
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