Re: Forwarded Invite to Discussion of EME at the European Parliament, Oct. 15, 11:00-13:00

On 2013/10/15 02:08, David Singer wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 13:07 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>>>  I certainly get that sense from your frustration.
>> 
> 
> No, my frustration is that we rarely get beyond a rather vague "I
> don't like it", or "it's contrary to some [rather unexplored]
> principles."


I have to disagree. Perhaps you've not read all the mails on this list, 
and I would be first to understand that. That said, and so it's clear, 
some of the reasons against EME are not "I don't like it" nor 
"unexplored principles".


The W3C's web should be open to any platform (hardware/software). From 
what I understand, I should be able to build my own platform from 
scratch, I will of course need to use materials that will be able to 
support the rendering and interaction of such content (a screen for 
visualisation, a keyboard for interaction, processor to calculate 
things,  etc etc) and write software that can interpret the entirety of 
the specification. I think this point is clear and we probably all agree 
up to here, let me know if otherwise.



The part where we might start to disagree:

With EME, we will have websites considered as "100% valid W3C", even 
though they may not accessible to all those with the above setup. 
Indeed, if a hardware CDM is required to view certain content, then this 
invalidates the website's accessibility. Another case would be with 
software CDMs, if the user has a EME capable browser but not the CDM, 
then installing the CDM should solve the accessibility issue.. . Except 
that the CDM being compiled software may not be available for certain 
systems (OS, browser, processor, etc).

This means:

- In some cases a user must browse the website with specific hardware 
(not just compatible) to view certain W3C valid websites
- In other cases, a user willing to install the website's CDM may still 
be blocked as it may not be available for that person's configuration 
(example: Firefox on GNU/Hurd).



The most valid counter argument is that EME is in the spec, not CDM. 
However, this looks like a loophole (on purpose or not), EME only exists 
for CDMs, and it is only usable in the real world if CDMs are 
blackboxes.

The next counter argument is that embed allows integration of Flash, or 
simpler, video allows the use of non-free formats. And that would be the 
difference, video tags *allow* the use of various formats, open, closed, 
accessible or not so much, in this case everyone is better off finding a 
high quality open format that all platforms can support, and that's 
what's happening.

With EME, there is no place for choice, it only works for obscured CDMs. 
  And as a bonus, its sole purpose is to restrict the user's computing.



Another point; Security. This has been said many times over, so I'm not 
sure how you've not read about it. It's a real concern and should not be 
treated as a tinfoil hat collector's delusional daydreaming.  Most users 
today will not understand the implications of such a system. The 
argument about "convenience to the users" is more about deception to the 
users. With EME, the W3C is in fact encouraging users to trust third 
party CDMs, or in other words, to give up some control over their 
computers in exchange for a premium content streaming experience.


The counter argument to this is that the idea would be to limit the 
control that the CDM may have over the user's computing. On one hand 
this needs to be proven, on the other hand, handing over any control of 
your computer is for many, already too much.


This is why some of us raise this concern, for those users who trust the 
W3C for the principles stated on their website. They may not have the 
time or expertise to read and understand the entire spec and the 
implications of it. They trust the label for what it says on the box (or 
tin, if you prefer tin).



In short:

- accessibility
- security/privacy




[...]
> Yes, the restrictions on fair use are troubling, yes,
> for some people, the lack of arbitrary device portability is a
> concern, and so on.


So you are aware of these concerns ?



> Until we can get a reasoned exploration of the
> problems we don't like, and an analysis of what's needed, I doubt
> we'll see a better idea.  And without a better idea, I don't see this
> conversation going anywhere.


This is another thing that's been said in many forms in defense of EME 
"Find another solution that satisfies the business and we'll drop EME".

We don't need to find a solution for businesses. We can find one, and if 
it happens it would be great, but it should certainly not be the 
condition to drop/change EME. Otherwise this implies that businesses can 
come up with bad ideas and force them into the W3C's spec and argue that 
if you want don't want it you need to propose a better solution.

It should be the other way around, for something to make it into the 
spec it should prove it is compatible with it.


The W3C's role is not to divide the web, it's the opposite of that. So 
far it's been pretty good. I've seen and worked on projects which have 
as a requirement that the result be W3C valid (often 
institutional/gov/public service). So far that means something, EME will 
most probably change that. It may even create the need to develop an 
open standard for web publications.

With that in mind, I understand the concern raised in the parliament 
today.



-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:20:13 UTC