[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
Deirdre Williams
williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Sat Jun 8 13:51:46 EDT 2013
What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence:
We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the
potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital
rights management (DRM) in HTML5.
to this:
We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5
seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly we
object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
Deirdre
On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has
> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more
> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending
> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having
> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this
> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical
> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media,
> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I
> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best
> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this
> work is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of
> saying no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to
> why it has filed this FO.
>
> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a semblance
> of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by releasing
> a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the statement
> itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we support the
> objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to ensure
> consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it because
> DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of this issue
> is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on this
> aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the IGC
> interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and had
> hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this
> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken.
>
> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under
> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action
> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a
> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to
> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML
> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it
> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Catherine
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre.
>
> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the
> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had
> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC
> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5
> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs
> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I
> know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of
> to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make
> something simple.
>
> I suspect we won't get consensus on more.
>
> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering
> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example
> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation).
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought.
> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter
> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not
> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter?
>
>
> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Deirdre.
>>
>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so
>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal
>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that
>> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in
>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote
>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which
>> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so
>> basically DRM).
>>
>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically
>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting
>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group
>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through
>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of
>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5.
>>
>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC
>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> Catherine
>>
>> --
>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>
>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me?
>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning.
>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent
>> EFF statement.
>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter",
>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of
>> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote
>> determination of end-user usage of content."
>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection
>> is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed
>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection.
>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this
>> reference in 2 -
>>
>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML
>> specification:
>>
>> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use
>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for:
>> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions<http://www.w3.org/TR/html-media-source/>
>> )
>> - supporting playback of protected content"
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/
>>
>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the
>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5?
>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was
>> what we were asked about in the first place?
>> Thank you
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Catherine,
>>>
>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the
>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I
>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the
>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the
>>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the
>>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end,
>>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular
>>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with
>>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from
>>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium
>>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I
>>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording,
>>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users
>>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment".
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Catherine
>>>
>>> --
>>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sala,
>>>
>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site
>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you
>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people
>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list?
>>>
>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement:
>>>
>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and
>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> (EFF) <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>>
>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5
>>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of
>>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.
>>>
>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement
>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" <
>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>>
>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and
>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>
>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at:
>>>
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your
>>> comments and suggest text.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the
>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in
>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of
>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM
>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This
>>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly
>>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able
>>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would
>>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to
>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say.
>>>>
>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve
>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement
>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the
>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective
>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies
>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy.
>>>>
>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst
>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key
>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:-
>>>>
>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management?
>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and
>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of
>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the
>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments
>>>> on the revised statement.
>>>>
>>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection*
>>>>
>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the
>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and
>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across
>>>> the planet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to
>>>> an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would
>>>> be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy
>>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to
>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing
>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse
>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with
>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the
>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers
>>>> communities.
>>>>
>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the
>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's
>>>> arguments in this regard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828 <%2B679%203544828>
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
>
>
> --
> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net
>
>
--
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130608/d07a7241/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list