W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: EME and proprietary plug-ins

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:50:13 -0500
Message-ID: <511AB915.8080002@intertwingly.net>
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, public-html-admin@w3.org
On 02/12/2013 04:41 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Actually, Henri, you're conflating Flash (or Silverlight) availability
> with "known licensing terms for DRM module".  That's not actually true,
> for two reasons - first, that Flash (or Silverlight) is not universally
> available beyond desktop systems, and secondly, just having Flash
> doesn't mean that Flash-DRMed content is universally available.  (E.g.,
> much DRMed content was blocked on Google TV, despite having the Flash
> runtime.)
>
> My point is simply that using Flash (or Silverlight) as a prerequisite
> runtime for DRM does not mean having Flash/SL is the same as having a
> license to the DRM "box".  All that using Flash/SL meant was that that
> runtime was a prerequisite, not that it was sufficient to equal "you can
> run this on an arbitrary machine with Flash/SL." Owners still could (and
> did) restrict the content further.

Could.  Did.  And still do.  See attachment.

- Sam Ruby


Screenshot_from_2013-02-12_16:47:29.png
(image/png attachment: Screenshot_from_2013-02-12_16:47:29.png)

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 21:50:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 February 2013 21:50:52 GMT