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 1:48 PM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> On 2013-10-10 12:38 Mark Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
>  meaningfull consent requires an understanding of what's being consented to
> (IANAL, but my understanding is that there has to be a meeting of minds
> for a
> contract to be valid)
> Which percentage of regular users do you suppose have that?
>

Like Alistair, I think most users of streaming services know they are
renting the content and don't expect to be able to access it after the
rental period expires. I think most people who install Silverlight or Flash
know they are installing a product from Microsoft or Adobe and take a
reasoned judgement on whether they want to do that. The fact that the
install step causes a huge dropoff is evidence that people don't all just
click through without paying attention.


>
> > 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.
>
> With black-box software you cannot truely know if what it's designed to do
> is
> what you agreed to when you installed it.
>
> That's even more true now that whistleblowers have shown that collusion
> between a lot of the big software companies and the US/UK intelligence-
> community is not only happening but common (and what's known is in all
> likelyhood still just the tip of the iceberg)
>

This is all true, but we are talking here about people who presently
install Silverlight or Flash and trying to provide them with a better
alternative.


>
> so yes, hijacking
>
> > 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".
>
> nope, I used your definition, the one you linked to earlier and refer to
> here
> (link is http://open-stand.org/principles/ for those not wanting to go
> dig for
> it)
>
> which says:
> - in point 4: "are made accessible to all for implementation and
> deployment."
> - and in point 3: "provide global interoperability"
>
> EME+CDM violates both, *by* *design*
>

I disagree. Anyone can implement EME and it will work anywhere. The
recently published Microsoft paper pointed the way to a public CDM API and
when that is available we will have a proof point.


>
> > > 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.
>
> we already have an API for black boxes, you just named it,
> we don't need a 2nd one
>

Oh, but we do, but only because we would like to constrain the black boxes
some and improve integration with HTMLMediaElement. Both modest, largely
technical goals.


>
> > 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).
>
> right so you've just admitted that:
> a) EME is DRM
> b) you can't standarize the actual DRM in W3C
>

Please re-read what I said, because "EME is DRM" is exactly what I didn't
say. I said EME is *for* DRM (as in "proposed for use with", at least
mostly).

(b) is not an "admission" - it's just obvious and noone has never said any
different.


> So why exactly are you and the rest of the industry arguing for EME as a
> W3C
> standard?
>

Because it's a better technical approach that will improve the user
experience compared to <object>, as I have explained many many times.
There's nothing more to it than that.


>
> A standard that leaves the actual DRM (i.e. the CDM's) unspecified does not
> gain the webcommunity anything at all compared to the black box approach of
> flash or silverlight, it essentially just provides an alternate sort of
> black
> box. Flash at least has the virtue of being widely supported by now.
>
> Yes, yes, flash is to heavy for mobile. There's nothing stopping the
> industry
> from cooperatively designing and all using a new kind of black box
> specific for
> DRM-video through the <object> tag
>

We think EME is better, technically, because it provides integration with
the HTMLMediaElement.


>
> > 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>.
>
> The reaction is because it endorses an approach that is in direct
> oposition to
> the very idea and nature of general purpose computers connected through an
> open web,
>

Like I said, I understand why an implied endorsement of an approach makes
some people uncomfortable, but for a significant number of people *within
the W3C* as well as elsewhere it's not such a big deal. But an endorsement
of that kind (implied or otherwise) is not necessary to achieve the
objectives of EME, since these are essentially about cooperatively
developing technology in an open way. W3C could remain agnostic on some
things, whilst doing what it can to promote outcomes aligned with its
mission.

...Mark


> You know where any piece of software that has bothered to implement a spec
> can
> fully interoperate with any other piece of software complying with the
> spec,
> no matter who controls either end. Black box DRM subverts that by design
> thus
> subverting the very thing W3C is supposed to champion
>
> It does so without any gain at all for the open web, and while pretending
> that's a good thing.
>
> In other words it's a wolf in sheeps clothing, and those of us seeing
> through
> the disguise are profoundly unhappy, uncomfortable and ANGRY at having it
> here.
> --
> Cheers
>
>