Re: Formal objection to Encrypted Media Extensions progressing to Proposed Recommendation without greater user protection

> On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:49 , Xabier Rodríguez Calvar <calvaris@igalia.com> wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
> 
> O Xov, 04-08-2016 ás 11:08 -0700, David Singer escribiu:
>> 
>> True, having watched people argue that gorillas are (or are not)
>> natural persons, nothing surprises.
> 
> I think this comment is out of place. I don't have the intention to
> bikeshed here but we should refrain such comparisons with other
> people's believes. You don't know who's subscribed to this list and who
> you could be offending.

I’m sorry if I caused offense, because none was intended.

My point is that if we claim in the spec. that neither the implementations of EME nor the underlying DRMs are technical protection measures, I think that greatly weakens the argument about EME: those who believe that a DRM is a technical protection measure will reject the statement as false, and at best this calls into question whether EME is, in fact, ‘part of’ a TPM. I would be concerned that such a statement would, in fact, be worse than saying nothing. If people believe it’s wrong about the underlying DRM, then maybe it’s also wrong about EME.

Let’s try another analogy: “neither the sky nor the glass are blue”. I don’t agree with the statement about the sky, and I observe that there are grasses called ‘bluegrass’ so maybe the entire statement is false, not just false in part. At this point, asking someone “what color is grass” they might reply “well, I don’t know, sometimes it might be blue” when previously one would have probably got the reply “um, grass is green”.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 5 August 2016 16:12:32 UTC