Re: "Enclosed shops" Re: HTML5 and DRM - A Middle Path?

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> On 2013-08-20 10:46 Mark Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:43 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
> > > On 2013-08-20 09:45 David Singer wrote:
> > > > On Aug 20, 2013, at 5:11 , Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, then I misunderstood, and I still don't understand what
> the
> > > > relationship is between EME, and the problem of the extent you can be
> > > > monitored/tracked online.
> > > >
> > > > > It seems that if you live in the US, you can get a "Security
> Letter"
> > >
> > > that
> > >
> > > > > you must comply with and discuss with no one or you spend 5 years
> in
> > > > > jail.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00
> > > >
> > > > And the relevance to this EME discussion is…?
> > >
> > > in as far as there is any relevance it would be that you can't trust
> black
> > > boxes, especially from US companies (who might be forced with a
> national
> > > security letter), and CDM's are black boxes
> >
> > So are plugins. What's the difference ?
>
> none, which is why EME is a red herring solving nothing, it's posturing to
> get
> the black box stamped 'standards-based'
>

Ok, so *in this respect* there is no difference. Hence this point in
irrelevant to the EME debate.

In other respects, as I have explained many times, there are differences in
terms of user experience and other things. That is what we are interested
in, not any kind of "stamp" from W3C or indeed cost savings. We really
don't need any kind of special stamp and there are no real cost savings
from EME (actually the reverse).

...Mark



>
> --
> Cheers, cobaco
>
>