I think that is the relevant discussion: Are there sufficient digital rights markup standards? Would there be any advantage to a rights or other standard tag with an attribute indicating the model (rdf, dublin core, cc, etc) which could be populated by the appropriate markup from your standard of choice? Or is it sufficient to require an html processor to mine for relevant rights metadata tags?
I think my initial reaction was to the blanket assumption/assertion/rhetoric that all drm is evil and somehow anti-internet. The existentce of the various standards Olaf has mentioned should suggest that there is a long standing legitimate need/desire/role for digital rights expression. I do probably hold a less popular view about encrypted media in that I believe the most secure app I could create for someone is one delivered through a proprietary plugin that a browser or other tech cannot sniff and which communicates through ssl to a secure host. It is true, however, that such a scenario may be abused if an embedded app is created by a malicious developer and allowed to gather data from the browser or hosting operating system and is not sufficiently sandboxed. However, I think such problems are surmountable if the mindshare that comprises the w3c works on it (within the appropriate working group). I am suspect of the NSA being the source of admonitions against encrypted media because there is a conflict of interest there. The NSA wants to be able to see all data, encrypting it would prevent/delay them from seeing info too and make their job harder. And so, at the end of the day it boils down to which freedom are you willing to give up, the freedom to see all data being transferred to/from an application or freedom to have secure private transactions? The use of fear to give up rights/freedoms in the guise of providing protection just feels all sorts of wrong and is probably why I chose to be a devil's advocate for an issue I normally wouldn't have the time to care about. If folks discuss DRM and decide its redundant, outdated, or unnecessary and that the EME proposal is incomplete or missing something or not ready for prime time then I don't care whether it is accepted or rejected as long as the decision is based on real fleshed out merits of the proposal. Rejecting something out fear without considering whether fears can be addressed is just bad policy. So, I'll shuddup on this issue leaving with the notion that digitally or otherwise I hope you'll value and defend your sovereignty and respect the sovereignty of others. Art C On Jun 13, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Olaf: > > You can simply use RDF, Dublin Core Elements/Terms, Creative Commons > etc and XHTML+RDFa (newest recommendation of (X)HTML currently) > to markup these things. > For example this is often used to markup metadata within > SVG document - with an alternative text view this should be > visible directly or with a look into the source code. > With XHTML+RDFa you can indicate directly the normal > content of a document to contain such metadata about the > work. Of course, with XHTML+RDF(a) and CSS you can style > or present such information as you like. > > Therefore there is no need for yet another method to indicate > rights and licenses of a digital work - there are already recommended > ways to do this, which cause no problems for accessibility. > Because it is only additional text information, that does not restrict > the access to the content technically, there is no problem > with deceased license servers, techniques not available without > internet connection or for arbitrary operating systems, or changed > licence conditions (because the author is dead already more than > 70 year at the time, a reader wants to have free access to such > a digital work) etc as typical DRM methods currently have. > If the content is not accessible for the reader, the media should > be considered damaged, not protected or managed. > > Olaf > >
