Sent from iCloud
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Maneesh Pangasa" <[email protected]>
Date: September 06, 2013 11:44:23 AM
To: [email protected],"Mark Watson" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: DRM in HTML5 A Betrayal of Public TrustMark Watson,As a courtesy I am C:ccing you on these emails to W3C against DRM in HTML5. Let me know though if you don't want to receive them I'll just send them to the W3C.Say No to the HollyWeb - say no to Hollywood no DRM in HTML5. Do not weave DRM into the fabric of the Open Web.The announcement is Netflix's latest chess move in their long game to blanket the web in DRM. Slipping a DRM delivery mechanism into the HTML5 standard is the online streaming giant's endgame. If the outrageous proposal Netflix is peddling to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is adopted, you can kiss the free Web as we know it goodbye. Where do they get the money to gain influence at W3C? From subscription dollars which is why FSF is advocating canceling Netflix.The proposal has faced massive public opposition, and so Netflix is introducing a new strategy. Fake it til you make it. In yesterday's announcement, Netflix rep (and W3C proposal engineer) Mark Watson said: "We expect premium video on the web to continue to shift away from using proprietary plugin technologies to using these new Premium Video Extensions." That's some impressive doublespeak: Premium Video Extensions are proprietary.
Meanwhile, in the real world, at least one W3C member has spoken out in opposition to the proposal, and an international coalition of 27 organizations along with tens of thousands of individuals have also asked W3C to abandon the proposal. But so far Netflix, and other powerful W3C members like Microsoft and Google, are drowning out that substantial opposition with brute force.
While W3C CEO Jeff Jaffe's public support for the proposal is baffling, it's the proposal's authors, led by Watson, who developed this scheme. DRM has been an important part of Netflix's business model from the beginning; the company currently uses Microsoft's proprietary plug in Silverlight to lock down its streaming videos. For Netflix, which has previously had to spend time and money to implement DRM, getting W3C to include support for DRM in the HTML standard would make it easier and cheaper for them to control your online viewing.
Netflix, and other companies supporting the proposal, have resorted to thinly veiled threats to deprive the world of movies. Having flashbacks to the empty threats made during the SOPA/PIPA fight? Yeah, us too. While it didn't work on Congress, the threat seems to be working on the W3C.
In a recent blog post, Jaffe wrote: "Without content protection, owners of premium video content - driven by both their economic goals and their responsibilities to others - will simply deprive the Open Web of key content. Therefore, while the actual DRM schemes are clearly not open, the Open Web must accommodate them as best possible."[3] We prefer the term 'free Web' Jeff, but we hear what you're saying--Hollywood is a bully and if you don't give them your lunch money, you'll end up with a wedgie.
The bullying may be influencing the W3C, but it won't work on us. We want Netflix to know we won't let them pervert W3C's mission just so they can save a few bucks. If Netflix wants to continue restricting users with DRM, they can do it on their own dime. So let's show Netflix that pushing for DRM in HTML won't save them anything; in fact, it'll cost 'em.
I am going to encourage others to cancel Netflix and spend those subscription dollars instead on supporting consumer groups like the Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation fighting this proposal.
Sent from iCloudfrom Defective by Design.org explanation for why users should cancel Netflix subscription and boycott DRM in HTML5:If you care about freedom on the Web, cancel your Netflix subscription. The company has been leading an aggressive lobbying effort to change the fundamental language of the Web (HTML) to add an official extension accommodating Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).. Free software supporters and the blogosphere have responded strongly to our previous posts about this attack on Web freedom, and many (like @jordiburcas above) have canceled their accounts. Now we're asking you to take this to the next level by dumping any stock you own in the company. DRM makes using free as in open source software harder.
Netflix's plan is to hijack the standards-setting power of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body that coordinates the development of HTML, in an attempt to make it easier to distribute media with DRM. Netflix's proposed extension to HTML, called Encrypted Media Extensions or EME, is supported by software companies like Microsoft and Google, as well as the powerful media corporations that provide the primary impetus for DRM. This cabal supports DRM because it gives them control over Web users. By adding artificial restrictions to media, they are able to corral people into their outdated business models and revoke customers' access to media (even media they have paid for) when it suits them.
As if we didn't already have reason enough to oppose this scheme, the proliferation of DRM inherently makes it harder to use free software. EME would indubitably lead to an explosion of DRM-encumbered media on the Web, restricting our freedom and pressuring users to install proprietary software to satisfy the demands of digital restrictions. For those committed to freedom and unwilling to install this software, DRM-encumbered sites would create a growing dark zone on the Web.
Maneesh Pangasa
Sent from iCloudEven if EMEs are not proprietary plugins users have to install (like Adobe Flash Player, Microsoft Silverlight, or Apple QuickTime which has a web streaming codec) they are still proprietary and closed technologies those supporting them want embedded in the HTML5 specification.. Please stop the HollyWeb no DRM in HTML5 no matter how much the MPAA lobbies for and demands it. They want to cripple the user experience of the Open Web and co-opt the Internet to stifle innovative competing new online services and startups that threaten existing business models - preventing new technologies from replacing old business models.Sent from iCloudSorry, my mistake, it is[email protected] (no second hyphen)...Mark
Sent from my iPhoneI just received a postmaster error that my message could not be sent to [email protected]
Sent from my iPadHi Maneesh,The right list for the discussion is [email protected].I understand why you and the FSF are opposed to DRM and why you campaign against it and indeed I would encourage anyone with strong views to campaign for what they believe in, but my point is just that the EME proposal doesn't and won't have the claimed effects. It won't have any affect on the use and adoption of DRM either way - whether adopted by W3C or not. It's the wrong target for your campaign. If anything, EME will make DRM on the web more transparent, more constrained and with more open review. There is already plenty of DRM on the web, you know. That boat sailed long ago.I wish that if the objections were simply a matter of the political optics of an organization like W3C "endorsing" the use of DRM then people would just come out and say that, rather than putting about questionable claims about the supposed effects of adopting the proposal. There's no need for the W3C to recommend or endorse the use of DRM in any political sense to achieve the technical objectives behind the proposal....MarkOn Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Maneesh Pangasa <[email protected]> wrote:I meanmt to send it to the group but didn't have the group email. My point is I do not think the W3C should support DRM in HTML5 - there should be no endorsement for adding it to the specification - I stand with the Free Software Foundation (FSF's) Defective By Design campagin to Stop The HollyWeb.. If you could please tell me how I can send to the group as an email I'll do that - otherwise manually go to the site and post again,Sent from iCloudHi Maneesh,I'm not sure if you meant to sent this to the list or only to me ? (you sent it only to me).I think you are mis-understanding the proposal and the question that is before W3C. The choice here is between W3C having a role in how DRM is used on the web and the W3C having no role in that. DRM will be used either way. The W3C has no control over that and this proposal won't influence that either.Our proposal defines common APIs, constraints and best practices for DRM on the web that are motivated by a desire to improve the user experience and user security and privacy. The alternative is a mess of proprietary APIs, no constraints and no best practices. I haven't spoken to them but I doubt very much whether the MPAA cares much about this proposal. They will get their DRM either way.Netflix *is* one of the innovative competing new online services that is changing the way people consume video content, using the Internet.Finally, FWIW, the proposal isn't intended to be part of HTML5 and as such it is optional for browsers to implement. It does not include or dictate that specific proprietary technologies....MarkOn Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Maneesh Pangasa <[email protected]> wrote:Even if EMEs are not proprietary plugins users have to install (like Adobe Flash Player, Microsoft Silverlight, or Apple QuickTime which has a web streaming codec) they are still proprietary and closed technologies those supporting them want embedded in the HTML5 specification. Please stop the HollyWeb no DRM in HTML5 no matter how much the MPAA lobbies for and demands it. They want to cripple the user experience of the Open Web and co-opt the Internet to stifle innovative competing new online services and startups that threaten existing business models - preventing new technologies from replacing old business models.Sent from iCloudSent from my iPhone
On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:05 AM, "Kornel Lesiński" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12 June 2013 15:36:20 Mark Watson <[email protected]> wrote:Actually, we do listen to our customers and potential customer veryclosely and the evidence we have is that they do not like having toinstall a proprietary plugin (of our choice) to access our service.This proposal is about addressing that, by enabling our service to runin browsers without a plugin install.EME will still require users to have a proprietary plugin (CDM) to access your service.
CDMs are not plugins. I'm not sure how many times we have to repeat
that before people will stop propagating this myth.
Yes, they share some features with plugins (notably some if not all
will be proprietary code), but there are many differences, not least
that no browsers have any plans to make them user-installable, users
will have a choice - through their choice of browser - and browsers
will have some control over what the CDMs can do.
...Mark--regards, Kornel
