RE: Mail to public-html-admin blocked?

(From a purely technical perspective, given that I am the intended principle
recipient of that email, I can state Andreas that I never received it
either, so I suspect that the problem might be at your end.

I could have (and perhaps should have) copied that email to the Restricted
Media Mailing list, however it is seemingly relevant to send it to
html-public-admin, and I will ask the Chairs if it was inappropriate to send
it to public-media. If it was inappropriate then I do apologize.)

Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> 
> But I would like to remind you that you (one of the main DRM proponents
> in the HTML WG)

Actually Andreas, this is where I believe you are quite mistaken. I
*personally* am not a huge fan of DRM, although the pragmatist in me accepts
that DRM is a reality on the web that we cannot wish away. 

My primary complaint is, and remains, that we are not discussing the
technical requirements (including real problems and possible solutions)
towards making Content Protection a possible and workable technology for the
web; no instead we continually get dragged into the philosophical discussion
of whether or not DRM is appropriate, and whether the W3C should be working
on DRM in the first place. It seems that we are constantly being bombarded
with variants of "DRM is evil". The most recent EFF objection only mentions
EME as an off-handed part of DRM, it actually doesn't appear to look at the
technology, and the basis for the complaint is not a technical one, it is
one based upon their philosophical position. Some might think that this is
legitimate, but I don't. 

The W3C is a standards body, it's not a church. I try hard to put aside my
personal beliefs in these matters and instead try to focus on why I
participate in a Standards body - to make good standards - hopefully great
standards, standards that can be used by real web content producers,
standards that work for most real web users (the goal of perfection for
everyone is one that I wish we could reach, but again I am pragmatic enough
to understand that this simply cannot happen). I think that the W3C is a
great place to do that kind of work, for reasons I have articulated in the
past. 

I see nothing that insists that you as a content producer must use this or
any other W3C standard, nor does any other content producer out there.
However, a group of producers need (want? require?) a technical solution to
a real and articulated problem. As a Standards body, we owe it to them to
hear them out, help them determine their requirements, and then try to
figure out how to solve their problem and write that specification standard
- not chase them away by saying DRM is evil, it will kill the web, or hear
that some commentators are *proud* to come from a country that is the most
notorious for digital media theft in Europe (and that they can somehow
*justify* that theft as noble and good), yada yada yada. This is simply
idealism and zealotry gone wild, and it angers me that this group must
suffer through that religious fervor ad nauseum. 

DRM already exists on the web: it seems from comments that for some it isn't
very good from a technical implementation, and maybe it will never get any
better, although anecdotally, protected content on the web works fine for
me, my parents, my neighbor and pretty much everyone I know who consumes it
today - but they aren't techno-geeks, and they are not trying to bend
digital entertainment to their will, they simply want to watch the movie and
enjoy it. They don't know what FOSS is, and they don't care: they just want
to watch their darned movie thank you very much, and they understand that,
just like when you buy a movie ticket to the theater, you don’t get to take
the movie home with you, and that it is dishonest to jump from theater to
theater watching 4 movies in one afternoon on one admission ticket. They are
not trying to force the theater owner to change their business practices,
they enter into the theater understanding the rules, and they accept them.
Why should it be any different on the web?

Maybe DRM *is* flawed today, but I challenge anyone reading this to make it
better. Make it better for the users, yes, but also for those who need/want
DRM. That to me is actually a reasonable and legitimate goal to pursue.
Trying to use the W3C as a bully pulpit to restrict legally legitimate uses
of the Open Web stack however is what *I* consider "Evil", and I too have
enough conviction to fight hard to promote *that* perspective.

JF

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 06:34:53 UTC