On 2013/10/08 18:29, Alastair Campbell wrote:
Emmanuel Revah wrote:
It is not because the industry wants to move away from X solution
that "we" must provide an alternative.
I understand that Flash and Silverlight is not working out for
them. Meanwhile open web standards has progressed, among many
things, they introduced audio/video tags and it's beautiful. I don't
care to see corporate needs spoil this, and it will.
I would argue it already has. There doesn't need to be a spec for
companies to extend the video element, EME-like code is already in
Chrome, IE, and Chromecast.
Of course there's no need for EME to be a W3C specification for it to
exist in the real world. That's not the problem, at least not for me.
There's already things worse than EME in the hands of half of the
western world.
The problem is that by EME being a part of the W3C spec it de-valuates
it. A bit like if a GMO crop obtained an organic certification (maybe
because a lot of people like the product). This is essentially what is
happening here, a label known to represent certain values is accepting
things outside of those values, because "it's good for business" or some
other unacceptable reason.
[...]
I'm not saying "we" have to provide an alternative, I'm say someone,
anyone(!) must provide an alternative to prevent that roll-out from
continuing.
To clarify what I meant: not only do "we" not have to provide an
alternative, not a single person has the duty to find an alternative.
There is no person in the universe who must provide an alternative to
prevent EME from being a W3C standard.
There will also be demand to protect other forms of content, like
images, texts and anything really, why shouldn't there be ?
Three reasons I can think of:
1. Images, text, fonts etc already have open solutions.
What open solutions do I have for my photos ? I haven't heard of it, I'd
actually be interested in this.
Apart from
illegal torrents, the content EME aims to protect is not available
through the 'open web'.
This is more than obvious. But what's interesting is that nothing you
can find on Netflix, which is DRM'd, can't be found via p2p networks.
This means 2 things:
1. Even with DRM, stuff gets out and on to p2p, easily and quickly.
2. Even with everything available for zero money, Netflix and the like
still have many subscribers.
And that means, which is a side note to the EME debate, is that the
business model does not even require DRM to be successful. People are
willing to pay a subscription to just get the stuff.
2. Few members at the W3C have an interest in doing that.
That's not a reason, all you need is for member at the W3C to suddenly
want to do that, or for members who want such a thing to exist to join
the W3C. It's not like many members of the W3C always wanted EME.
3. Overhead. Providing a CDM is not trivial, so a site that provides
HD images is unlikely to be able to create an ecosystem with the
hardware/OS level integration needed to enable this.
CDMs also have overhead when dealing with videos, so I guess that
overhead itself is not a reason.
I'm fairly new to the W3C (as a member organisation) but I haven't
seen any wish to extend EME to other content types. I (an AC rep)
would vote and fight against extending it in that manner.
As Duncan Bayne was saying, there are already people who want this. And
I really don't see any reason why video can get DRM with the W3C label
and not text and images (and everything else, even markup, why not).
The argument that DRM is commercially accepted is not a valid one.
Most users don't have a clue about what's going on. I've recently
given mini talks about "how the Internet works" and realised that
even well educated people had zero clues about what happens beyond
their own screen. I really mean ZERO clues.
"We" can't expect everyone to understand everything, of course, but
"we" shouldn't take advantage of that either. If we do, we break the
trust.
I generally agree with that, except that a commercially accepted
solution is needed, and there isn't a viable alternative.
It is not because it is needed that it needs to be a W3C specification.
Those who say yes say "because it's better than Flash" or "If
there's going to be DRM it might as well be in the spec".
I would say "If there's going to be DRM running through the HTML5
video element anyway, it would be better specced openly and through
the W3C process."
I've already suggested that DRM proponents found a separate organisation
that would specify standards for "open" DRM. Otherwise, and again, it's
the Organic Label on industrial cow brain fed "chicken" "wings"
situation.
[...]
I do put user-needs first, I work in usability & accessibility.
User needs a guarantee that they can access the web with any browser,
even a self written one (as long as it follows the open specifications).
That's what the W3C spec stands for, that's what EME takes apart.
I do take your point that we should know better and protect users in
this step of the war on general purpose computing. However, the
majority of users want the content big-media provides, and don't care
enough about the DRM issue to avoid it. In this way market forces are
pro-DRM and there is no alternative that meets the user needs (get the
content) and media requirement (protect the content). Yet.
I already answered this, users do not understand the implications. We
do. That's why I am here.
(I'm not part of a business that would profit with or without EME).
2. Is there a better alternative that the content-producers will
accept?
Again, I think this question is unhealthy. It's the same question
as the previous one. These questions insinuate that the community
owes the movie/tv/music industry a technical solution within the W3C
standards, even if it bends the rules.
Perhaps it is unhealthy, but it's practical and necessary. I'm not
saying anyone owes the industry a solution, but if we don't want DRM
as the solution there has to be an alternative. Currently there isn't
one.
I don't mind if the industry chooses DRM, I really don't. They exclude
me from their services/products or whatever it is, but I don't mind.
They can deliver their content to whoever is willing to pay with all the
DRM they want. I don't care.
Just don't give it an "open and accessible web for all" label.
And also, they don't want an alternative. This list has mentioned
watermarking techniques, but suddenly watermarking would create too much
overhead (according to Mark Watson). Whereas the whole CDM system does
not, strangely.
What the industry wants is control. How users play their content, when,
where, almost why. And then more control (volume, pause, how many people
are in front of the screen watching, etc).
Is it possible to create a DRM system that does not require users to
run vendor software on their systems ?
No. At least, that is my understanding of the theory and practice of
DRM.
That's what I understand as well. Which is why DRM cannot be part of
what the W3C's website says it stands for.
When I say alternative, I mean a new business model that doesn't
require DRM, not a new form of DRM.
How about a business model that delivers content to authenticated users
over an encrypted channel (https) and then asks the users to not put the
stuff on p2p because then the business would fail and they wouldn't have
this service that makes life much easier and safer and faster than using
p2p ?
It's called trust, if the business model has so little trust that it
needs to install software that controls the user's computer it's not a
business model worth defending. I also do not shop at stores that
require that I leave them my backpack because "thieves". I'm not a
thief, like most people, so why treat everyone as such ?
--
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com
