Re: Trust

>>>>> "MW" == Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes:

    MW> For the second group, since they cannot access any protected
    MW> content today, they are affected only if content which is
    MW> unprotected today becomes protected in future *as a result of
    MW> EME*. 

Or if content which is protected today wouldn't become unprotected in
the future as a result of EME.

I believe W3C standards can help move in one or the other directions.
E.g. thanks to HTML5 I can view YouTube videos without Flash today.
Would it happen if some opaque Flash box mechanism was standardized
instead of HTML5?

There used to be times when W3C standards were often violated but
complaints about broken results in W3C compliant Web browsers were being
discarded by providers explaining that "90% of our users use
(non-compliant) browser XY which works fine so we don't care".  Believe
me, it was very frustrating being a second-class Web citizen but I could
at least complain.

With EME I'll be a second-class Web citizen without any ground to
complain since EME will be compliant.

When accepting pragmatic thinking, it's much easier to get unprotected
content without paying for it (regardless of whatever kind of DRM in
action) than to follow the EME topic.  But we probably believe that
making fair deals is a better way otherwise we wouldn't bother.

    MW> I understand the criticism that we do not provide a solution
    MW> which does not rely on placing trust in an opaque piece of
    MW> software.

And without being able to implement it on any (reasonable) device or
system we like.

    MW> Let's consider what such a solution would need to look like: we
    MW> would need a non-user-modifiable component that was completely
    MW> user-verifiable.  That is, which a user could look into in such
    MW> a way that they can obtain complete confidence about what it
    MW> does - at least functionally, up to some numerical values that
    MW> may not be easily observable.

    MW> Creating such a thing is challenging, but I don't know anyone
    MW> who would not welcome it if such a thing was created. 

[...]
    
    MW> What I can say is that such a solution would fit right in with
    MW> the EME architecture. So, whilst I understand this as a
    MW> criticism of existing DRM, I don't understand it as a criticism
    MW> of EME.

We don't believe common implementors will be looking for challenging
solutions when they can use EME simply in ways they are used to, right?

I understand the need for EME by some entities and I admit it's hard for
me to imagine working non-DRM solutions for some useful services
provided *nowadays*, without considerably changing some things.
I appreciate you acknowledge the criticism of DRM/EME as well.
I believe we can understand each other to this point.

We probably don't understand each other on the benefit and harm of
making EME an official W3C standard.  I tried to explain above why I
don't think making EME an official W3C standard is a good idea in
current situation; while I still don't understand why developing EME
outside W3C wouldn't satisfy the needs of the first group you mention.

Well, I don't think making EME a W3C standard can be stopped now.
I still think cementing some things this way and leaving significant
part of Web users as second-class netizens is a mistake.

Received on Saturday, 12 October 2013 21:23:18 UTC