RE: The challenge of serving *EVERYONE* (was RE: Mozilla blog: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users)

Bob Ham wrote:
>
> > Hang on, I didn't say DRM is good: I did suggest that it seems
> > reasonable to me as a business requirement.
>
> OK, you believe DRM is reasonable.  But do you believe it's good to
> give money to people who produce unencumbered content, rather than give
> it to people who produce DRM-encumbered content, all else being equal?

I've already answered that question. I don't factor that question into my
assessment.

All things being equal (in every other aspect) I would support either
enterprise equally. DRM/non-DRM is not a deciding factor for me, it has no
impact on my impression of quality or value - 2 factors that *DO* affect my
decision process.

More importantly here, I would stream media content to my browser (using
HTML5's <video> or <audio> elements) with or without copy protection. We're
not talking about any other method of Digital Rights Management (in the
Cory-Doctorow-chicken-little sense of the now decades old Sony Root-kit
problem). We're not talking about encrypted and locked digital downloads,
we're not talking about a software program that I would install on my
device; we're talking about digital entertainment that is streamed to me in
real-time, and configured so that you cannot copy it. Given the millions of
subscribers to online services such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Spotify,
Rdio, Pandora, etc., etc., etc. it seems to me that *MOST* people online who
use these services today have voted with their feet (and pocketbooks) and
have agreed that it is not unreasonable.

EME, and the smaller (easier to sandbox) CDM, is an advancement on what we
currently have today. It has a smaller digital footprint on our devices and
is as secure (some may argue more secure) than current NPAPI solutions
today. I have no illusions that it is "great", but I do believe it is
"better" than what has come before.

> >
> > Look, you can weasel word your way around the legal definitions of
> > theft versus copyright "infringement", but the unauthorized copying of
> > digital content to circumvent lawful pay-for-use is wrong, and is
> > morally the same as stealing - at least in my books.
>
> I disagree.

Well, you can disagree, but currently the law protects rights owners and
affords them legal recourse when unauthorized copying happens. I get you
disagree with that too, but fighting that fight at the W3C is like fishing
in the desert - kind of pointless and likely not to result in any meaningful
success.

JF

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 18:19:11 UTC