People disagreeing with the HTML Working Group in the matter of content protection have been redirected here and it would seem appropriate for them to become members and to choose a Chair who supports them and to choose to close their group if they feel it is being used against their interests. In the absence of anyone else stepping forward, I nominate for position of Chair and seek a mandate to close this group.
My concern is that if an attempt is not made to select a new Chair and close the group then the lack of action will lend support to the DRM proponents by supporting their rhetoric - the Director of the W3C, Tim Berners-Lee, and the W3C may well claim that they supported alternatives, provided a venue for discussion, but that no suitable alternatives were produced, that an alternative chair could have been elected or the group could have been closed if their was strong disagreement, or even that the discussions pointed to the need to develop an open DRM system to meet security and privacy concerns! Wendy Seltzer is the current chair of this community group, and she is the Policy Counsel for the W3C. People disagreeing with the pro-DRM position of the W3C and Tim have been directed away from the HTML WG to this community group. Wendy has only made a few postings, but I will examine some to highlight that her views seem supportive of Tim's and of the W3C. Wendy has a great record of supporting good causes, and it's not personal, but she might not be the most appropriate person to represent those in disagreement with Tim and the W3C. There are already EME implementations, and the work on the EME is expected to continue. We need to plan ahead for the W3C recommending the EME specification. We can not stop Tim, the W3C, and the DRM proponents, but we might be able to make our own distinct case for the principles of the web that does not include DRM and this might someday help defend against persecution in the web ecosystem. Given the rhetoric from Tim and the W3C you may well find the EME advancing and it being claimed that DRM is founded on technically sound HTML design principles and that the EME specification was the product of an open working group in which all could have participated. We can not stop EME being added to some proprietary web browsers, or Tim and the W3C recommending DRM, but we can choose a chair for our community group and better control the rhetoric and even close our community group to attempt to move discussion back to the HTML working group and seek more of a voice there. Don't be used by Tim and the W3C, vote me in as Chair so that we can attempt to close down our community group or at least have better control over the rhetoric. cheers Fred http://www.w3.org/blog/2013/03/drm-and-the-open-web/ Wendy: 'W3C is not developing a new DRM system, nor are we embracing DRM as an organization.' I interpret the actions of the W3C as embracing DRM and the W3C seems to at least be facilitating the development of an integral component of a DRM system in the EME specification. Many appeals have been made to Tim and he has refused to budge. Wendy: 'We invite those who are interested in the technical discussions about Encrypted Media Extensions to monitor or participate in the HTML Working Group, which is open to all.' I dispute that the EME is the product of an 'open' working group in which we can all 'participate'. The HTML Working Group has refused to address our concerns and refused to give us a vote on the path of the HTML WG and has ignored the lack of consensus and insist that W3C policy is that no dissenters can stop work and they have labeled us dissenters. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0320.html Wendy: 'This is, to me a key question the restrictedmedia group can address: What is the best way for W3C, starting from where we are now, to make the world better for users -- whatever your perspective on "better for users" is. For those who don't like DRM, recognizing that W3C likely doesn't have the leverage to kill it, should we try to slow it down or open it up? Are there ways we can usefully make the restrictions less onerous without merely driving their proponents elsewhere? For those who like the business models DRM enables, are there ways to make the encrypted-media content more web-accessible (linkable, privacy protective, accessible) and to shrink the restrictions on open source development, to broaden the base of support for these models?' People in disagreement with Tim and the W3C, and who are being redirected here, do not want DRM added to the web and are certainly not interested in designing an alternative DRM system. Tim's follow up post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0322.html Tim Berners-Lee: 'Let me broaden that to -- how can we make it better for the planet? This includes 'users' and also publishers. Discussions of DRM often start off with a mindset of a a few locked down dominant publishers ripping off/being ripped off by individual consumers/citizens/criminals. A more enlightened mindset is of everyone being producers and consumers. If DRM is important to a market, can we open it up so that anyone can participate. Remove the assumption that only one company holds the key to DRM playing on your machine. Allow a garage band to set up the same provider-based system as Sony does? Nikos's statement "... EME [...] contradicts with Open Web principles" is rousing but doesn't say which principles those are nor how they are necessarily contradicted. One principle of the open web is "anyone can publish", Can we design an EME system where that is true, and anyone can publish content using it? Suppose we put that into the requirements spec. For example, if there is a corner of your machine it is hard to program, which helps you keep track of what you have paid for and what you haven't, the private key it holds corresponds to a public key which any publisher can be given? Or something?' Again, the focus is to 'design an EME system' which we are not here to do. People disagreeing with Tim on the EME are being redirected here and they are not here to design an alternative EME. Note that Tim fails to recognize any contradiction between the EME and Open Web principles. People being redirected here disagree with Tim on this matter. Tim notes a 'principle of the open web' that 'anyone can publish'. The contemporary design of the web does allow anyone to publish, but they need to accept the technical reality of the web design which does not include DRM. Perhaps Tim meant to say that anyone requiring DRM terms can publish on the web, but I would dispute that this has been a 'principle of the open web' - the EME is the attempt to add DRM to the open web standards. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Oct/0085.html Wendy: 'What do you mean by "go forward"? The working group is entitled to proceed with its efforts to develop an extension specification, as the discussion is in-scope for HTML. Whether it gets approved as a W3C Recommendation -- and how it gets changed or improved along the way -- are still open questions. This group is part of the ongoing discussion.' This statement by the current Chair would appear to support the current position of Tim and the Chairs of the HTML Working Group - that the WG is exclusive and that we have no say in how the work proceeds or on the content of the extension specification that is submitted for approval. Judge for yourself if this is consistent with the above statement that the WG is 'open to all'? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Oct/0087.html Wendy: 'That scope was brought before the W3C advisory committee in the HTML charter, and saying it's "in scope" only says the discussion may take place, it doesn't predict an outcome of the discussion.' The HTML WG is working on the EME specification, a little more than a 'discussion'. There have been formal objections that I understand Tim will rule on. We have no control of the content of the EME specification and Tim to rule on the 'outcome of the discussion'. http://www.w3.org/blog/2013/10/on-encrypted-video-and-the-open-web/ Tim: 'The HTML Design Principles give helpful guidance on the priority of constituencies: "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementers over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words, costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementers; which should be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once." So we put the user first, but different users have different preferences. Putting the user first doesn’t help us to satisfy users’ possibly incompatible wants: some Web users like to watch big-budget movies at home, some Web users like to experiment with code. The best solution will be one that satisfies all of them, and we’re still looking for that. If we can’t find that, we’re looking for the solutions that do least harm to these and other expressed wants from users, authors, implementers, and others in the ecosystem.' I dispute Tim's technical interpretation of the 'priority of constituencies'. Even users who 'like to watch big-budget movies at home' would like to be able to save the movie to re-watch, and to access the web without giving away control of their general purpose computer and the potential loss of security and privacy. I consider DRM a tradeoff of user rights for access to content, in other words a tradeoff of rights under the 'priority of constituencies' and a sell out of the contemporary HTML Design Principles. Tim: 'W3C is a place where people discuss possible technology. The HTML Working Group charter is about the scope of the discussion. W3C does not and cannot dictate what browsers or content distributors can do. By excluding this issue from discussion, we do not exclude it from anyone’s systems.' >From Tim's Twitter page 'w3.org, the place to agree on web standards'. I >suggest that the W3C and Tim recommending the EME will have more meaning to >the public than just some arbitrary outcome of a discussion and that this >dispute can be resolved only by either the W3C stopping work on the EME or by >the W3C significantly limiting its advertised activities and goals etc to be >just a paid facilitator, publisher, and promoter of specifications. Since the >W3C and Tim have refused to stop work on the EME we need to press them to >limit their advertised activities and changing the Chair of our community >group to one who can control the rhetoric and close this community group is >part of this process - even if this fails it will narrow any claims that can >be made of the mandate of this group. Tim: 'The conversation has just started. The Restricted Media Community Group is one forum for discussing this. The [email protected] list is good for general Web architecture, and there is the HTML Working Group and a Web Copyright Community Group. And there are comments to Jeff's posting or this post though I may not be able to answer them all.' Our dispute is with the advancement of the EME specification in the HTML Working Group. If this were just a conversation that has 'just started' then there would be no need to work on the EME on a track to a recommended standard in the HTML Working Group. We should test Tim on his statement, close the Restricted Media Community Group, and move the 'conversation' back to the HTML WG.
