Re: EME is in the scope of the HTML WG

Inserting this link into this thread in case anybody hasn't read it yet:
https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The EFF, as
usual, has good points and ends with recommendations. My point being is
that it's not _just_ about scope.

Also relevant: client side binary plugins are on the wane.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2049366/firefox-and-chrome-give-browser-plug-ins-the-cold-shoulder.html
The trend towards use of client side sandboxed scripting primitives in
preference to binary plugins seems to indicate that web DRM can function
just as well without a w3c EME explicitly defining it.

To EME proponents: I'd call any DRM an ornithopter, but apparently those
things are able to fly now. I liked the perpetual motion machine analogy.
In any case, effective DRM is an arms race because there isn't a solution
today that won't be bypassed tomorrow. Won't a consolidated standard be
lots of copyrighted eggs in one flimsy basket? If I were a content provider
I'd stay far away from it.

R/
Eric
http://www.datamungeblog.com



On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Catherine Roy <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> If I am not mistaken, the EFF formal objection has not yet been addressed,
> or at the very least, the results regarding decisions related to that
> formal objection have not been made public. Unless I missed something,
> which is quite possible these days. If not, I would be very much interested
> in knowing where we are in terms of process relating to that formal
> objection and when we can expect to have an answer.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Catherine
>
> --
> Catherine Roy
> www.catherine-roy.net
>
> On 2013-09-28, at 05:46, "Andreas Kuckartz" <a.kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:
>
> > Fred Andrews:
> >> I repeat, the director of the W3C has made no decision regarding
> >> the EME work, and this is a matter of recent public record.  Your
> >> communication is misleading and misrepresents the director of the
> >> W3C and the work of the open web community.
> >
> > No, it does not.
> >
> > The director (unfortunately) has decided that work on EME is in scope of
> > the HTML WG and also made clear that this is not considered to be a
> > decision regarding the later acceptance of EME as a W3C standard.
> >
> > There are people (like myself) who are convinced that EME can not be
> > improved in a way which makes it compatible with the Open Web and
> > therefore think that work on EME is both a waste of time (like a
> > research project attempting to build a perpetuum mobile) and helping DRM
> > proponents.
> >
> > But it does not help the cause of DRM opponents at all to misrepresent
> > the current position of W3C management.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andreas
> >
>
>