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

On 2013-10-15 15:50 David Singer wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:48 , cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
> > 1) EME+CDM is not functionally implementable without industry approval
 
> Some or most content protection systems are either implementable only by
> their owner, or under agreement with the owner, yes.  (e.g. AACS for
> Blu-ray is implementable if you agree to the license).

One of the stated design principles of the W3C is 'web on everything' that 
includes free OSes (like e.g. cyagenmod or Debian). 

To get there "implementable without permission and full transparency" is a 
necessary precondition.

This is thus a dealbreaker (or should be if W3C wants to be seen as having any 
integrity, as being trustworthy)

> > 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.
 
> No, it isn't.  It may be your point, but you're ignoring the very real needs
> of the accessibility and international audiences.

'Web on everything' is an explicitly stated W3C design principle [1], this is 
not just 'my' point.

> > general purpose computers and non-broken copy protection are mutually
> > incompatible requirements, you cannot have both at the same time
> 
> That's an opinion, not a fact.

It's neither, it's a logical consequence of the basic definitions of the two 
concepts:

general purpose computer = a device for manipulating and storing bits, any 
bits, for any reason 
(that a particular bunch of bits also happens to be a representation of a 
particular movie or piece of music is irrelevant to the device)

copy protection = mechanism to prevent a particular manipulation of bits, some 
of the time (you can't display or stream or download anything without copying 
to videomemory at the very least)

wanting a general purpose computer that can't copy certain bits in certain 
cases is as fundamentally unsound an approach as wanting a printing press that 
can't print particular stories, or a xerox machine that can't copy certain 
books

> > 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
> 
> I eagerly await your re-organization of the TV, film, and music industries. 
> It's OK to dream of a very different world;  it's not OK to base your
> actions on presuming the dream is reality.

that vision increasingly is reality, I've named examples before, and so have 
others

the 'dream' is also a logical consequence of the basic non-scarcity nature of 
of digital goods, consequently I'd say the ones wanting to put the genie back 
in the bottle by ignoring that are the ones dreaming

> > - 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

> This is a completely false analogy.  If you don't want to pay for the
> content, no-one is forcing it on you.

So If I make a copy of something, nobody is gonna try and stop me?  Nobody is 
gonna have a problem with that?

I bet that's news to all the people who got sued by the MPAA or their local 
equivalent

Digital goods are like ideas, as Jefferson put it:
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without 
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [(candle)] at mine, receives light 
without darkening me.

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

> Again, not the opinion of the owners. Well, they could wish for an
> alternative that provides enough 'friction' to digital copying, but at the
> moment, there doesn't seem to be one.

exactly, they need to just adapt to that reality of non-scarcity

> > 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

> Like I have said before, DRM is a pain for everyone -- owners, distributors,
> and users.  We have managed to get to the point where the music industry
> feels comfortable with the balance they can achieve without DRM. 
>
>  Movies are, alas, very different in their pricing and consumption patterns,
>  and the movie industry is not there yet.  I know you wish it wasn't true,
>  and imagine a world where it's not true, but it is.

they're not different in todays digital world:

in both cases you're talking about something competing in the entertainment 
market

in both cases people mostly, and increasingly, consume them on general purpose 
computers (of an ever increasing number of form factors and designs)

in both cases you're talking about a good with a marginal cost that's 
functionally zero

in both cases piracy is a practical alternative

in both cases people have shown -by doing it- that it *can* be done without 
massive private infrastructure (or the budgets that infrastructure requires)

in both cases distribution over the internet is possible and common (legal or 
otherwise)

in both cases going viral and more generally word-of-mouth through social 
media provide a way to the mainstream and/or financial viability without 
massive marketing budgets

(the above 3 can be summarised as: in both cases the barriers to entry have 
essentially disappeared so that production, distribution and marketing is now 
in reach of individuals, or small groups with corresponding budgets)

in both cases there has been an exponential explosion of new content the last 
couple of years

The King Canute analogy applies equally in both cases

> I agree with you, the years in which the industry refused to embrace digital
> copies -- essentially saying to users who wanted one that their only avenue
> was piracy -- were like Canute when he was told he could stop the tide
> coming in.  They have moved beyond that.

So if you recognize that refusing to embrace digital copies is like Canute 
trying to stop the tide...

then why is Apple actively trying to help the movie industry in attempting it?

why not get together with netflix, and google and amazon, not in an attempt to 
to help the movie industry play Canute, by facilitating DRM, but in an attempt 
to actively oppose that doomed approach?

It has been done before, Jobs Open letter [2] had Apple lead the way in the 
DRM fight with the music industry.  The rest of the outlet sector followed [3]
[4] apples lead and the music industry changed its tune.

The movie industry is in the exact same position as the music industry was, 
they could choose not to provide the goods, but that just means people would 
move to piracy.

As you've said repeatedly DRM is a pain for everyone.

Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google collectively have the market power to stop 
DRM as a viable approach for movies now rather dan afer a drawn out fight,
just like they did with music.

Has apple lost it's spine with the death of Steve Jobs, has it lost it's 
vision, the ability to make the right but seemingly bold choice? 
If not, then why is Apple not helping to make the movie industry stop playing 
Canute, but instead actively helping them?

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles
[2] 
http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_posts_rare_open_letter_thoughts_on_music/
[3] http://ipod.about.com/b/2007/10/12/yahoo-music-joins-call-to-end-drm-on-music.htm
[4] http://ipod.about.com/b/2007/12/04/report-wal-mart-gives-drm-ultimatum.htm
-- 
Cheers

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 22:38:55 UTC