RE: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group

If your proposal is a server-side solution then it would overcome the blocking issue.  For example, server side water making.  But then it would not be necessary to add 'content protection' to HTML WG charter -  it could be implemented without 'content protection' in the charter.

If your proposal involves any restrictions on the user agent then it is still a mis-feature, and does not solved the problem of how we can all get along in the larger discussion that is the web ecosystem.

For example, even a do-not-copy flag would be a mis-feature, even though it could be implemented in open source web browsers.  I filed a bug to add such a flag during work on EME bugs, to try and propose a simpler solution to some of the use-cases for the EME that would be more privacy friendly and secure for the user.  One of our group members explained offline all the negative issues that this would have and I now agree (thank you for your patience).  The courts may well consider even a flag as an effective technological measure and then it would legally constrain browser vendors, and user agent extension authors, etc, even if the user themselves might be free to circumvent it to make fair use of the content.  Could someone correction me if I still have not grasped the issues?  Perhaps Wendy's area of expertise.

An alternative proposal I have been suggesting since the EME FPWD CfC was to simply keep it out of the web, and in a separate Internet connected app or device, and work on adding a general web mechanism for redirecting to such apps or devices.  We could then address the technical problems of making the use as seamless and convenient for users as possible.  I think it would work very well.  For example, you visit a web page advertising a big budget movie and after signing in or paying etc it shows a splash image for the movie and when you click on it you are presented with a selection of your apps and devices that can view it - e.g. your TV, iPad, Android tablet, MS Windows DRM app, Netflix Linux USB DRM dongle, etc.   For a dongle or module, the device could even be owned by the publisher (Netflix etc) to further protect their position.   Unfortunately the EME proponents are just not interested - for now they are pushing to integrate tightly with the web.  If the W3C were to remove content protection from the charter and shutdown the work on the EME tomorrow then the EME proponents could just roll over to this solution and still solve their use case - we would have a much better outcome for security and privacy, and keep the web discussion open and free of mis-features.    What do people opposed to DRM in this group think?   This still promotes DRM, but not on the web, and solves some significant issues.  Am I still misunderstanding some important points?

A FAQ would be a really good idea.  It's a complex matter.  Perhaps a few FAQs, each biased to different points of view.

cheers
Fred

From: jeff@w3.org
...

    On 1/10/2014 6:28 PM, Fred Andrews
      wrote:

    
    
      
        
          
          

            ...


            So what ideas do you have to help us all get along in our
            open discussion that is the web ecosystem?

          
        
      
    
    

    Long ago I proposed that we work on a soft-DRM system that is
    breakable (hence less secure) and then sell it to content owners as
    the right approach.  I believe it was attacked by content owners as
    not being protective enough of content, and by free software
    advocates as not worth the time.  I'm still looking to build a
    community around such a solution.