On Oct 14, 2013, at 17:15 , Duncan Bayne <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, my frustration is that we rarely get beyond a rather vague "I don't >> like it", or "it's contrary to some [rather unexplored] principles." > > Those 'rather unexplored' principles are clearly spelled out and > explained on the W3Cs own website. Where incompatibilities arise with > 'content protection', those incompatibilities have been clearly spelled > out on this list. > > There is no ambiguity or vagueness here. Actually, apart from generally using the word 'open' in a whole slew of ways, we haven't got a crisp idea of exactly what the problems are for principles. 'web for all' :but this is a mis-read of that principle. web-for-all means that you shouldn't be restricted from being on the web by your language, location, accessibility needs, and so on. Not that you should be able to make arbitrary technology choices -- e.g. choose to use a BBC Micro with open-source OS -- and still be able to browse the modern web. 'open source': The W3C *likes* to have open-source implementations, but actually (unlike say, ISO) does not require even reference code be available, let alone open-source. 'implementable from the specification': yes, EME per se is. But there is no requirement that the target of all the JS APIs be equally so. Indeed, on a system without an audio capability, audio APIs will be unusable/useless as well, and so on, and websites that need them therefore also useless. 'royalty free': again, the EME implementation is. And indeed, there are some content owners that only want 'low level' protection -- that the content is not trivially copy-able. Some open DRM specs could satisfy them. > >> Until we can get a reasoned exploration of the problems we don't like, >> and an analysis of what's needed, I doubt we'll see a better idea. And >> without a better idea, I don't see this conversation going anywhere. > > We already have a better idea, clearly stated by me and many others on > this list: declare 'content protection' to be out of scope, and cease > all work on it. The absence of an idea is not, by itself, an idea. > You are assuming from the outset that some sort of 'content protection' > will be discussed; this is begging the question. No, I am assuming -- no, I know -- that some people create content for the jobs and wish to sell it, and not have it be freely available. >> Nor does imputing motives to others help, or roping in other (mostly >> unrelated) problems, or other questionable debating techniques. In fact, >> they look like attempts to bolster a weak case. > > I'm sorry if I seemed to be imputing motives to you, specifically. What > I meant by my statement is that Apple, Netflix et al have managed to > have content protection declared in-scope *before* any public > consultation or discussion took place. Actually, there was a lot of discussion in the media task force that preceded the work in the HTML working group. And not just scope, either: is EME an improvement on 'whole system' plugins like Flash? Is the system workable, implementable -- can a classic 'monolithic' DRM be split in this way with Javascript involved? And so on. > Clearly, those companies in favour of EME did not want the decision on > scope challenged in any way. You see, there it is: you're assuming a motivation. > What motives would you like me to infer from those actions? Well, you could assume what people actually say. That they want the benefits to the web of being able to host for-sale content, that they want the 'footprint' of the plug-ins reduced a lot, and so on. Look, there are specific benefits and problems that come with bringing this content to the open web. For what it's worth, EME and DRM are currently the best idea on how to do that. You can wish that this content NOT be on the open web, but in proprietary, walled-garden, apps and systems, but for some that unacceptably impoverishes the web. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
