- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:48:32 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- CC: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 7/12/2013 1:42 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > Jeff, > > Jeff Jaffe [2013-07-12T13:28]: >> The more complete description is that certain content owners invested a great deal to create certain content > Content owners do not create content. They own the content, they might be indeed the creator, or the investors. but it's a bijective relation. > > > >> and therefore have expressed a requirement to protect that content. > Protecting content != Content investment. > Indeed some individuals, companies, etc who have invested money in buying content and/or in creating content might want to protect it. But the technology to protect content is totally unrelated to the investment part. A content which has been produced without too much investment can be protected in the same way. > > I think it's what some people are saying on that list. EME/CDM is orthogonal with regards to the type of content. The system will/might be used in many cases outside of what it has been created for. You can imagine specific communities, surveillance (gov documents), artistic projects on reducing the usability of content based on time, etc. etc. (no assumption on the good or bad) Yes, the diversity of situations is exactly why I usually simply call it premium content; also because we did not succeed in agreeing on a different word. > > >> "If these systems are also interested in viewing content whose owners invested a great deal to create and therefore have a desire to protect that content, they already have proprietary software to view that content. > Well this is the bogus statement about EME/CDM use case. The type of content which it will be used for has nothing to do with the technology itself. This is orthogonal. > >
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 17:48:42 UTC