Re: Need for culture access with non-mainstream OSes (was Re: Campaign...)

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2014/01/13 17:15, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 2014/01/11 23:27, Mark Watson wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>  There are content owners who require such a 'black box' today and
>>>> the
>>>> reach of their content is limited to platforms that support that
>>>> capability today. So, (legal) access to that content is not
>>>> available
>>>> on some platforms today. That situation will continue, based on
>>>> the
>>>> economics, as you say, irrespective of what W3C does. W3C
>>>> recommendations are not what cause that effect, now or in the
>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean that the values/standards endorsed by the W3C should
>>> be changed to reflect what is happening on the market rather than be
>>> a set of standards with its own principles and goals ?
>>>
>>
>> No, I didn't say that.
>>
>
>
> Then I have no idea what you were trying to say.
>

That DRM is and will continue to be used to restrict access to content to
platforms that meet the robustness requirements of the content providers
and that this is not and will not be caused or affected by anything that
W3C does. And then, that this fact should not be an impediment to W3C
standardizing improved technical solutions and that making such
improvements for users of the web is not inconsistent with the values /
goals of the W3C.


>
> You say that the web will use DRM regardless of what the W3C does. I get
> that and I'm not arguing that (I don't think anyone is).
> If you are not using that statement as a reason for the W3C to adjust
> their values to what the web does then what are you saying by this ?
>

No, I'm saying that the improvements for web users we expect to get from
EME are consistent with the W3C values / goals.


>
> This is a sincere question, I've seen this argument many times before on
> this list "The web will use DRM regardless of W3C recommendations". That's
> certainly very true, but how does this justify that DRM should be in
> context of W3C recommendations ?  Or how is this statement supposed to be
> relevant ?


I'm saying, again, that we should compare the world as t would be with W3C
recommendations as we have proposed with the world as it would be without
such recommendations and ask whether the *difference* between these two
situations is something consistent with W3C values / goals. Anything that
remains the same between these two outcomes is irrelevant to the discussion.

...Mark



>
>
>
>
>
>  With EME we're hoping to make it *easier* to support more
>>>> platforms,
>>>> so if anything EME will have the opposite effect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At best this will change nothing at all in terms of supported
>>> platforms. At worst, CDMs could be used to restrict access content
>>> to specific platforms.
>>>
>>> For example, a hardware based CDM built-in to the next iphone could
>>> be used to ensure access to certain content is only possible using
>>> that specific device. Hardware CDMs are in the works, so how does
>>> EME ensure "the opposite effect" ?
>>>
>>> The publisher will have the possibility of deciding which platforms
>>> may access their content. This decision could be made based on
>>> various motivations that may range from "Evil Empire" to "low
>>> budget" as using multiple CDMs, to provide access to more platforms,
>>> *will* cost more.
>>>
>>
>> The whole point of DRM is to attest to the provider that the content
>> is being consumed by a player with certain properties (specifically
>> robustness). Those properties obviously vary by platform, so yes, all
>> DRM gives the provider some control over which players on which
>> platforms can play the content. Specifically, to ensure the player has
>> the robustness properties required by the content license.
>>
>> I don't see what EME has to do with this point. It is just a
>> well-known property of DRM independent of whether the DRM is accessed
>> through EME or some other way.
>>
>
>
>
> It is hard for me to follow how this is a reply to what I wrote.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>
>
>