Re: DRM in HTML5 A Betrayal of Public Trust

There are a few interesting assumptions there. I work at a company that is
a W3C member, but we do not have a direct interest in this so I'm at least
somewhat impartial [1].

- "*Fake it til you make it.*". From previous discussion I would interpret
this as Netflix (and others) developing it because they need to, regardless
of a standards process.
- "*thinly veiled threats to deprive the world of movies*". These are
hardly threats, the movies we are talking about are not *currently *available
(legally) on the "open web". And they won't be without some form of DRM
that satisfies the content-owners. The proposed standard bridges HTML5 and
DRM. That will happen whether or not the W3C is involved.

You are also shooting the messenger. Netflix is essentially a middle man
here, they don't need persuading that DRM is bad, I'm sure they would be
happy not to use DRM. It is the content-owners who need persuading.

There are really only two things that can change at this point:
1. Whether the W3C is involved in the process of standardisation. FWIW, I
think the result would be better if it is done within the W3C.
2. A new, viable alternative is created that would satisfy the content
owners.

In short, I think you're targeting the wrong organisations, and unless a
viable alternative is created (in the eyes of the content-owners) you are
not going to achieve anything. You might even set back the more progressive
organisations involved in distributing content online.

NB: "In the eyes of the content-owners" is a key caveat here. Even if such
a scheme existed they would need to see a business succeed whilst using it,
which is a pretty tall order. I suspect this would only happen as part of a
larger shift in how the movie industry works.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

1] We (Nomensa) do user-research and web development. I personally don't
like DRM and avoid *buying *DRMed content whenever possible. However, I'm
happy to use services like Netflix as that is essentially hiring content,
not buying it, and I am fully aware of the deal.



Maneesh Pangasa wrote:

>
>
>
> Mark Watson,
>
> As a courtesy I am C:ccing you on these emails to W3C against DRM in
> HTML5. Let me know though if you don't want to receive them I'll just send
> them to the W3C.
>
> Say No to the HollyWeb - say no to Hollywood no DRM in HTML5. Do not weave
> DRM into the fabric of the Open Web.
>
> The announcement is Netflix's latest chess move in their long game to
> blanket the web in DRM. Slipping a DRM delivery mechanism into the HTML5
> standard is the online streaming giant's endgame. If the outrageous
> proposal Netflix is peddling to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is
> adopted, you can kiss the free Web as we know it goodbye. Where do they get
> the money to gain influence at W3C? From subscription dollars which is why
> FSF is advocating canceling Netflix.
>
> The proposal has faced massive public opposition, and so Netflix is
> introducing a new strategy. Fake it til you make it. In yesterday's
> announcement<http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/06/html5-video-in-ie-11-on-windows-81.html>,
> Netflix rep (and W3C proposal engineer) Mark Watson said: "We expect
> premium video on the web to continue to shift away from using proprietary
> plugin technologies to using these new Premium Video Extensions." That's
> some impressive doublespeak: Premium Video Extensions *are* proprietary.
>
> Meanwhile, in the real world, at least one W3C member has spoken out in
> opposition <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> to
> the proposal, and an international coalition of 27 organizations<http://www.defectivebydesign.org/dbd-condemns-drm-in-html> along
> with tens of thousands of individuals<http://www.defectivebydesign.org/oscar-awarded-w3c-in-the-hollyweb> have
> also asked W3C to abandon the proposal. But so far Netflix, and other
> powerful W3C members like Microsoft and Google, are drowning out that
> substantial opposition with brute force.
>
>
> While W3C CEO Jeff Jaffe's public support for the proposal is baffling,
> it's the proposal's authors, led by Watson, who developed this scheme. DRM
> has been an important part of Netflix's business model from the beginning;
> the company currently uses Microsoft's proprietary plug in Silverlight to
> lock down its streaming videos. For Netflix, which has previously had to
> spend time and money to implement DRM, getting W3C to include support for
> DRM in the HTML standard would make it easier and cheaper for them to
> control your online viewing.
>
> Netflix, and other companies supporting the proposal, have resorted to
> thinly veiled threats to deprive the world of movies. Having flashbacks to
> the empty threats made during the SOPA/PIPA fight? Yeah, us too. While it
> didn't work on Congress, the threat seems to be working on the W3C.
>
>
> In a recent blog post<http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html>,
> Jaffe wrote: "Without content protection, owners of premium video content -
> driven by both their economic goals and their responsibilities to others -
> will simply deprive the Open Web of key content. Therefore, while the
> actual DRM schemes are clearly not open, the Open Web must accommodate them
> as best possible."[3] We prefer the term 'free Web' Jeff, but we hear what
> you're saying--Hollywood is a bully and if you don't give them your lunch
> money, you'll end up with a wedgie.
>
> The bullying may be influencing the W3C, but it won't work on us. We want
> Netflix to know we won't let them pervert W3C's mission just so they can
> save a few bucks. If Netflix wants to continue restricting users with DRM,
> they can do it on their own dime. So let's show Netflix that pushing for
> DRM in HTML won't save them anything; in fact, it'll cost 'em.
>
>
> I am going to encourage others to cancel Netflix and spend those
> subscription dollars instead on supporting consumer groups like the Free
> Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation  fighting this
> proposal.
>
>