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 Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> 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).
>

It's not "hijacking" if there is user consent. And clearly the DRM
components which the user has bought/installed were designed to do exactly
what they do. If I choose to, I can ask my computer to behave like a media
player with certain properties and I can prove to the content provider that
this is what I have asked my computer to do. I don't have to do that if I
don't want to. If I think these terms are unreasonable, I'll just pass on
the deal they're offering.


>
> 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'
>

So, again, it depends on your definition of open standard. I'm looking at
open-stand.org. I see no reason why a traditional standards organization
couldn't fully define a DRM system under those principles. I think you're
working with a stronger definition of "open".


>
> > >> 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 first point depends on your definition and W3C is continuing to
discuss that. It's not an argument for not even discussing the topic of
content protection. We (well, TimBL, probably) will have to evaluate any
solution the WG comes up with when we get there.


>
> 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
>

Ok, so really your point is (a) and we can stop getting distracted with
the highly debatable propositions in (b).


>
> 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.
>

EME is just an API. An API can be standardized without standardizing the
rest - like <object> - and there is value in that. I'm not saying EME
isn't for DRM - obviously it is - just that is it possible and sometimes
useful to standardize part of a system and leave another part unspecified.
Particularly in this case where standardizing the actual DRM in W3C would
not be possible (and this last is not just a willful refusal on the part of
the industry, it's just not possible, as far as I can see, not least
because of the IPR situation).

So, again, it still isn't clear to me why this proposal causes such a
reaction, except because of the sense that W3C might be giving some kind of
political or moral endorsement to a technology approach that some people
think it should not endorse. The proposal itself is just an alternative to
<object> to access some unspecified capabilities, but with a more
constrained scope that could lead to improved user experience compared to
<object>.

...Mark

...Mark



> --
> Cheers
>
>