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]

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:01 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> On 2013-10-10 16:16 you wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:01 PM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
>>> then why not simply stop looking for that endorsment?
>>> i.e. stop trying to get this endorsed as a W3C standard
>>
>> You are equating two things which not the same. A standard can say 'if
>> you do DRM on the web, we recommend you do it this way' without taking
>> a position on whether or when you should 'do DRM on the web'.
>
> it *could* indeed say 'do it this way' ... it just doesn't
>
> the standard is but a shim shunting the actual DRM to a black box called a
> CDM. There is no attempt to try to document let along standarize the working
> of those CDM's, and it's been made abundandly clear that is not an oversight
> but the way the industry wants it.

No one has said this is the way the industry wants it. It's just that
it's not possible to specify a DRM under W3C patent rules, as far as I
know.

If it were possible, then I expect someone would propose it and then
we would find out what 'the industry' thinks - at least the part whih
is here. But the whole question is moot.

It should be said that it is no more difficult for you or anyone else
to design and build a new DRM system than it was for those who already
sell them. It's just a question of time, money and expertise like any
specification except that the expertise required is not entirely
technical.

>
> Consequently EME is a trojan horse and has no positive benifits to the open web
>
>> I am only interested in the former, for rather boring, technical, user
>> experience reasons. And I have nothing against general purpose
>> computers, btw. You seem interested mainly in the latter, as part of
>> an essentially political campaign, as far as I can tell.
>
> the technical details are discussed elsewhere
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/ is what the spec lists
> as forum for that)
>
> those like me bringing up political/philosophical objections to EME as part of
> W3C where explicitly pointed to this list. As industry representative you get
> to hear our objections and try to adress them

Yes, and what I hear is that you object to DRM in the web. But DRM on
the web is well-established - has been for some time. EME doesn't
change that and in fact is a mostly technical exercise that offers
improvements on some of the aspects you seem to care about.

So, what confuses me is why your objections are focused so heavily on
EME and not on DRM on the web more generally and if it is really the
latter you wish to campaign against, why you are trying to do that
here, given that W3C has little or no influence over that?

>
>> We want different things for different reasons, so I am left wondering
>> whether there is a way forward ?
>
> I've already listed the mininum requirements, I'll repeat them:
> 1) fully spec out the CDM's, this is needed to make a fully functional 3th
> party implementation possible
> 2) commit to allowing 3th party CDM implementations to fully interact with
> content
>
> without both of those W3C would be making a fundamental shift
> - from championing an open web where full interoperability is a simply a
> matter of of implementing the specs
> - to championing a closed web where full interoperability requires industry
> approval, but it's still called an open web

Well, adding EME does not take away any existing functionality. There
is no site or service on the web today that will stop working when EME
is added to a browser. I don't see why W3C can't continue to extol the
virtues of the open web in the sense you describe whilst also
providing a forum for discussion of things which in your view fall
outside that.

...Mark
> --
> Cheers
>

Received on Friday, 11 October 2013 14:39:50 UTC