Hi Jonathan,
On 2013-07-16 02:04, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Hi Catherine,
Thanks for the link! I didn't know about that effort until now.
It seems like there are two fronts-- one, which you address by
jettisoning EME in freedomhtml, and another which is to keep member
organizations from standardizing software/hardware on EME. Is there
any way for the current members of all the working groups to put
pressure on the WC3? If they all banded together and threatened to
leave would that have any effect on the administration? It's only
anecdotal evidence but I see a lot of articulate arguments against EME
in the archives I've looked over, and no principled stances in favor.
If I am not mistaken, W3C is a private consortium, their operations are
mostly funded[1] by their member organisations via membership fees[2], a
significant part of which comes from their corporate members[3]. It has
been brought up more than once on the Restricted Media Community Group
mailing list (a group btw, that has no power over the EME draft aside
from discussing it and exploring alternatives) that W3C is technically
only accountable to its members and this argument has not been disputed
by W3C staff.
As you know, Google, Microsoft and Netflix are the editors of the EME
spec so I think that is pretty significant. Mr. Jaffe has argued for the
need of "content protection" while basically denying[4] that W3C is
working on DRM and while technically, that may be true[5], the fact
remains that EME is being developed to interact with DRM components. It
has been argued that the only way to beat this is to join it or in other
words, propose another technical solution that will satisfy "premium
content" distributors. But if discussions on the restricted media list
are any indication, this is unlikely to happen if that solution involves
accomodating open source systems.
At this point, I can not see anything that will change the situation
despite overwhelming opposition. Personally, I doubt W3C will be
deterred from "process" (because W3C is all about process) and we can
probably expect more formal objections where process allows and
meanwhile, EME is being implemented regardless that it is for the moment
only a First Public Working Draft and a very controversial one at that.
Also, has the EFF's formal objection had any effect?
To my knowledge, no information has yet been made public regarding the
outcome of this formal objection. There has been a second formal
objection filed that is also awaiting resolution [6].
It's just all mind boggling to me because this draft is the only thing
I've ever seen from WC3 with the sole purpose of restricting people's
access to content.
While that may be true, I would add that regarding HTML5 accessibility
for people with disabilities, it has been an uphill battle since the
very start to ensure the inclusion of certain attributes and some losses
have been incurred along the way. So I would say that in reality, this
could well have the effect in terms of restricting access to content.
Best regards,
Catherine
[1] http://www.w3.org/Help/#funds
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees.php?showall=1#results
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0116.html
[5] http://lwn.net/Articles/550424/
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013May/0138.html
--
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing
moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
