I’ve always been against DRM on principal and IP in general, but I am also a practical, pragmatic, realist. it irks me to no end to have to defend what a huge positive move this standard is and point out the lies being spread about it. lol.
1 Like
Well I have seen DRM of sorts used well internally in the corporate world but this was used to control documents and communications, nobody can take that company email and edit it for whatever reason without screwing the digital watermark up. I have come around to yes it has some actual uses. But keeping movies/music from being copied/distributed isn’t it.
2 Likes
excellent point. i digitally sign all digital legal agreements and contracts. no problem with that.
i’d personally love to see an open culture of sharing both of ideas and creative elements where we can build off of each other’s ideas and creations for the good of all. I’m an idealist in that regard, but i temper that with an understanding of our current situation and the reality of how things work today in this world.
1 Like
That’s your strongly held opinion from the technical side, not a legal opinon.
And those who stand to gain and who aren’t concerned about their oxes being gored aren’t offering to indemnify those who are concerned against liability?
Maybe listen more and think through the concerns expressed more carefully. No one wants legal trouble, esp. not for doing her job.
1 Like
Again, I’ve never seen a single legal argument for how this standard, that doesn’t change the historical or current separation of browser and DRM, increases risk. Not even one legal argument anywhere.
The EFF has never posted one, nor has Cory. Nor can I turn up any with my extensive google fu. Please post one and I’ll consider it. As far as I can tell no one has ever made one.
(on the other hand, i have seen numerous well articulated arguments of the multiple ways it decreases risk for end users and developers, and have posted those repeatedly.)
3 Likes
Is there a reported legal opinion or statute on point? That may help quiet concerns about liabilty.
An arrangement that indemnified those who are concerned could help too.
If there’s really no risk, indemnification is one way to show confidence in that conclusion.
1 Like
again you misunderstand, the indemnification agreement doesn’t affect the standard at all, despite them proposing it be slipped into the standard, it would affect proprietary third party software, where the risk already exists and which is and will continue to be separate from the standard and the browser. You have to understand this crucial separation to get the argument being made.
- there is no additional risk to security researchers working on browsers.
- there is still risk to security researchers working on circumventing proprietary DRM code same as there always has been under the current laws. The only way to change that is to change the laws, no agreement pact can supersede the law.
- DRM is not part of the browser historically, nor is it with this new standard, the separation is remaining the EXACT SAME as it always has been, since 1995.
- This new standard maintains the exact same separation that historically existed with DRM and the browser via plugins, it changes nothing in that regard.
- EME is already implemented in all major browsers, this is just making the existing situation an official standard. It has zero risk impact because it doesn’t change anything. All the browsers already have it.
- The agreement they are trying to slip in doesn’t affect the browser at all or the standard at all, it is a sneaky way to try and affect circumventing the proprietary third party DRM code, except such agreements do not legally superseded LAWS, all it will do is block the standard without providing any real protection. It is a deceptive and backhanded move, and the reasons justifying it are completely dishonest.
EME improves user security, user privacy, access for small developers, access for new entrants into the field, the ability for people with disabilities to interact with content, the ability for browsers to interact with content (like mute, play, pause, etc.)
EME does not in any way change the separation of browser and DRM that has existed since 1995.
3 Likes
Dear professional person barely making ends meet and/or small public interest nonprofit,
This is to frivolously accuse you of violating the DMCA for … reasons.
You probably can’t afford to deal with this so please cave in immediately to our bullying.
If you fail to comply super fast to this demand, we will file a complaint in federal court.
Motions to dismiss are totes expensive, and there’s no clear precedent.
Sincerely,
In-house counsel for Acme, Inc.
2 Likes
huh? this isn’t a legal argument. it is a fictional anecdotal form letter. Please link to an actual legal argument from a lawyer or someone qualified to make such an argument that would outline the legal basis for such a claim or for any increase in risk.
There is no legal argument being made that EME increases any risk exposure or that the DCMA applies to EME any more then it does to the plugin architecture in general because it isn’t true. The DCMA does not apply to EME, as there is nothing in the EME that is covered by the DCMA, the DCMA only applies to circumventing third party CDMs. That is a fact.
You’re right. 
2 Likes
How can a standards body indemnify people working on something (3rd party code) that the standard (API)does not apply to? That’s like asking a highway engineer to indemnify people who juice up their engines.
3 Likes
I’d indemnify everyone myself except there’s no clear law and responding to frivolous demand letters is expensive.
ETA — @doctorow, could W3C condition charter membership on indemnification or similar provision? Maybe an interesting question for an EFF intern if it hasn’t come up yet …
Thx for another awesome, interesting post! 
Can’t they just send that letter anyway, regardless of what you are doing and how?
I feel like I’ve been misinformed on this issue and I understand it better after reading your posts.
I still feel like it could lead to risks for users because previously where overly litigious companies might have argued that Adobe or MicroSoft are responsible for security holes in their DRM by allowing us to access it via Flash or SilverLight, they will now be left with no one to blame but end-users, and thus they will turn to tactics like those used by copyright trollies. Still, as I said above, I think when it comes to extorting money from people through spurious legal claims, that door is always open. I’m not really talking about increased legal risk so much as I’m talking about being at increased risk of falling under the eye of some company looking to sue whatever it can.
1 Like
Thanks! 
It’s less likely when the law is settled and clear. If there are unsettled issues, courts typically end up interpreting the new law which can be expensive.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
