Re: Dear EFF: Please don't pick the wrong fight

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:56 AM, John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> wrote:

> Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, as Danny O'Brien said, "It's really hard to argue that
> > DRM is problematic when people can turn around and say that the W3C and
> Tim
> > Berners-Lee think it's all right.", so I see why those opposed to DRM
> would
> > object to the "in scope" statement as a loss in a broader political
> > context. But that's not related to EME specifically and is really an
> issue
> > between opponents of DRM and the W3C management.
> >
>
> It is related to EME specifically. The "content protection in scope"
> statement is *not* exclusive to DRM. As Jeff has said, "content
> protection" is not synonymous with DRM. Other techniques such as
> watermarking, which do not require patented, non-interoperable,
> proprietary software on Web users' computers, fall under that category
> by their definition as well.
>

In practice, individual watermarking would probably be implemented on the
client side, so it would still require proprietary non-modifiable software
on users' computers. EME could be used for that, sure.

I wouldn't view watermarking as a panacea. The problem of stolen
credentials and the resultant false accusations is a significant one.


> So, yes, we have specific objections to EME, because EME is a member of
> this category that is objectionable for reasons that do not apply to all
> members of the category.
>

So, if "content protection" includes techniques that are not objectionable
to you, why such opposition to it being declared in scope ? And why no
proposals for the non-objectionable options ?

...Mark



>
> -john
>
> --
> John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
> GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
>
> Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
> <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.
>
>