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

On 2013-10-14 17:42 David Singer wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 17:15 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> 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."
> > 
> > Those 'rather unexplored' principles are clearly spelled out and
> > explained on the W3Cs own website.  Where incompatibilities arise with
> > 'content protection', those incompatibilities have been clearly spelled
> > out on this list.
> > 
> > There is no ambiguity or vagueness here.
> 
> Actually, apart from generally using the word 'open' in a whole slew of
> ways, we haven't got a crisp idea of exactly what the problems are for
> principles.

then let me spell it out again:

1) EME+CDM is not functionally implementable without industry approval
2) that produces the exact same practical results with respect to stiffling 
interoperability/innovation/competition[1] as a patent without a license grant 
does
3) that means EME+CDM is a complete reversal of past W3C policy in that 
respect

[1] yes I do mean innovation: compare the music sector where we have juxebox 
devices like ipods and the moviesector where any such juxebox device gets sued 
out of existence by the industry (thanks to laws like the DMCA and EUCD 
coupled with the weak and broken DRM on DVDs, see e.g.  
http://gizmodo.com/027191/kaleidescape-sued-by-dvd-cca)

> 'web for all' :but this is a mis-read of that principle.  web-for-all means
> that you shouldn't be restricted from being on the web by your language,
> location, accessibility needs, and so on.  
> Not that you should be able to make arbitrary technology choices -- e.g.
> choose to use a BBC Micro with open-source OS -- and still be able to browse
> the modern web.

Being able to make arbitrary technology choices on your end and still be able 
to interact without needing anyones permission (provided the technology you 
chose implements the standards used) is EXACTLY the point.

That's the critical property that allows client-side innovation, that's what 
allows the rapid progress, in short that's what makes the internet great 
(power to the edges)

It is this property in fact that allowed TBL to create the www in the first 
place

If you have a standard that prevents a functional implementation without 
approval of some gatekeeper (needing to approve your implementation for actual 
use)...
then you have a 'standard for a few'  as opposed to a 'standard for all', it 
is missing the critical property that would make it the latter

Such a standard skews the playing field and leaves it in control of the 
gatekeeper (whoever controls the widely used CDM's), it stiffles and controls 
client side innovation

(and the movie industry has a history of using DRM+DMCA or DRM+EUCD for doing 
exactly that, in other words this is not a hypothetical, see e.g. the 
kaleidescape case I referred to above,)

> 'open source':  The W3C *likes* to have open-source implementations, but
> actually (unlike say, ISO) does not require even reference code be
> available, let alone open-source.

having a standard that actively prevents a functional free software 
implementation is the exact opposite from *your* 'web-for-all' definition above

> 'implementable from the specification': yes, EME per se is. But there is no
> requirement that the target of all the JS APIs be equally so.  Indeed, on a
> system without an audio capability, audio APIs will be unusable/useless as
> well, and so on, and websites that need them therefore also useless.

apples and oranges: 

one is a consequence of *not* being *allowed* to interoperate, 

the other is a concequence of being *physically* *unable* to (and even then 
you could pretend to have the hardware and save the sound to a file for later 
listening on a more capable system, that's a fair use called time and format 
shifting)

> 'royalty free': again, the EME implementation is.

again, EME is just a shim, it lacks a description of the functional component

on a practical level for implementers it achieves the exact same result as 
patents without a license grant, 
as such it does an end-run around standing W3C policy, i.e. it is a trojan 
horse.

> >> 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.
> > 
> > We already have a better idea, clearly stated by me and many others on
> > this list: declare 'content protection' to be out of scope, and cease
> > all work on it.
> 
> The absence of an idea is not, by itself, an idea.

let me state it this way then: 

general purpose computers and non-broken copy protection are mutually 
incompatible requirements, you cannot have both at the same time

we want W3C to choose general purpose computers, not content protection

we should probably start referring to DRM according to what it is actually 
used for: 'innovation and usage control' as opposed to 'copy protection'

> > You are assuming from the outset that some sort of 'content protection'
> > will be discussed; this is begging the question.
> 
> No, I am assuming -- no, I know -- that some people create content for the
> jobs and wish to sell it, and not have it be freely available.

as pointed out before: if you want ensure you're going to get payed you need 
to arrange remuneration before you do the work, not after

if you insist on doing it after you do the work then you are like:
- a street-musician busking. Some of those that stop and listen will throw you 
some money, and some of them wont
- one of those guys at a traffic stop that starts cleaning your windows unasked 
and then gets all outraged if you refuse to pay for the unrequested service

> Well, you could assume what people actually say.  That they want the
> benefits to the web of being able to host for-sale content, that they want
> the 'footprint' of the plug-ins reduced a lot, and so on.

red herring:

you don't need DRM to host for-sale content, it is in fact easier without DRM

examples of businesses and people hosting for-sale content withouit DRM are 
evergrowing, and have been named on the list before, DRM is a false 
precondition 

For that matter you're from apple, AFAIK iTunes is currently DRM-free, which 
means  your company has first-hand experience proving exactly how false the 
position 'DRM is needed to host for-sale content' is

> Look, there are specific benefits and problems that come with bringing this
> content to the open web.  For what it's worth, EME and DRM are currently
> the best idea on how to do that.  You can wish that this content NOT be on
> the open web, but in proprietary, walled-garden, apps and systems, but for
> some that unacceptably impoverishes the web.

red herring:

Industry cooperation is irrelevant, the pirates are in the game also, they've 
already put the content on the web and will continue to do so.

Keeping the content off the web is thus not an option the industry actually 
has.
-- 
Cheers

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:49:03 UTC