[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
Catherine Roy
ecrire at catherine-roy.net
Sat Jun 8 14:03:37 EDT 2013
Hi Deirdre,
That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object
we keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be
something like :
"We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in
HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise
the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to
the inclusion of DRM in HTML5."
Best regards,
Catherine
--
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net
On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 Roy
>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net <http://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:
>>>> o facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source
>>>> Extensions <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-media-source/>)
>>>> o 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
>>>> <mailto: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 Roy
>>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net <http://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
>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B679%203544828>
>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>>>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
>>>>>>> <http://salanieta.blogspot.com/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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 Roy
> http://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/20130608/45e81518/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