Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

On 2013/10/25 14:17, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Emmanuel Revah wrote:
> 
>> For example, if EME/DRM is rejected from the W3C, those that require
>> DRM for their businesses will probably find another way, it can
>> either be contained by the web (like Flash) or not.
> 
> I think what would happen is that the companies would carry on, it
> would work through the HTML5 video element in pretty much the same way
> as it has been specced so far.
> 
> The only differences would be that:
> - The W3C isn't seen to accept DRM.
> - The process of specifying it would not be as open or robust.


The process doesn't have to be less open or robust if it is done outside 
of the W3C, there's no logical reason for that. "They" could just as 
well start a consortium which could have the sole purpose of 
standardising DRM in the most open way possible. There are zero reasons 
to not do this (if W3C rejects EME).


> I don't think making protected content out-of-scope would have any
> practical effect.


I agree 100%. But I don't see how it would be less practical either, 
okay, a bit, but not much. "They" would have to take the work already 
done and continue it with a different label.


It would though have a positive ethical effect as it would clarify the 
values of the W3C, as in that the "open web standards" do not have the 
purpose of restricting content, and worse, giving publishers any form of 
control over the users computing.



Actually, this would be practical, because it would also avoid having 
this discussion later about other tags. I know many EME/DRM proponents 
very convinced that DRM@W3C will never spread further than audio/video 
tags but I don't and can't believe this. For one, that would make 
certain tags/content more "precious" than others in the eyes of the 
spec.

An example, I stated in another message, is the rise of screen 
resolutions. Websites will have/want to publish high resolution 
(print-quality) photos, there will be a desire by some to protect those 
images and there will be a precedent to legitimise that. And SVG, it's 
so easy to copy that.

Other content publishers WILL want to use the W3C standards to specify 
ways of protecting their content, and they will be right to do so if EME 
becomes a W3C thing. Nothing said on this list has convinced me that 
content protection stops at audio/video.


Cheers,


-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 10:59:24 UTC