Re: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

Good compilation of the current status of the discussion, congratulations :-)

2013/6/12 Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013/06/12 01:03, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This discussion (for me) is within the scope of the W3 and not life
>>>
>>> in general.
>>>  >
>>>  > If there is no other way to restrict content other than by
>>> involving privacy concerns, should the W3C endorse it ?
>>>  >
>>>  It that's the question, taking in account W3C is an organism that try
>>> to promote open web, definition that include users security and
>>> privacity by itself and common sense, then definitely the answer is
>>> "no".
>>
>>
>>
>> You, I and others would of course say no. However Mark has been asking
>> "us" to provide a better solution to avoid privacy concerns.
>>
>> The intention of my question is to out this insane notion that EME
>> opponents should be responsible for finding an alternative solution to
>> implement DRM that would satisfy everyone.
>
>
> Emmanuel,
>
> The W3C does not exist in a vacuum and it's reasonable to consider the
> consequences of our decisions within W3C on the wider world. I have argued
> that W3C working on EME will result in a better outcome for users than the
> likely alternatives. There are three threads of argument against this:
>
> 1) That this is not true, W3C working on EME will result in a worse outcome
> for users than the likely alternatives.
> 2) That EME is inconsistent with principles that are central to W3C. The
> outcome for users is irrelevant because this is a matter of principle.
> 3) That the proposal retains some negative features of the other likely
> outcomes i.e. that it is not "good enough".
>
> I have not seen a clear articulation of (1), with the exception of one
> detail which I shall address below.
>
> (2) we have discussed at length without consensus and I maintain that there
> are other areas of W3C work which exhibit some but not all of the features
> of EME that are said to be inconsistent with principle.
>
> For (3) it's reasonable - and not insane - to challenge those who say the
> proposal is not good enough to make their own proposal that is better. Also,
> arguing (3) is inconsistent with arguing that the work should be stopped now
> at such an early stage: perhaps some of the negative features can be
> addressed by actually working on them. It could be argued that W3C EME is
> not a big enough improvement over the status quo to justify some other cost.
> Those costs need to be spelled out to make this argument. Further, this
> argument can be made only once we are further advanced in the process and
> know better what W3C EME will be: it's not an argument for stopping the work
> dead.
>
> The one aspect of (1) which I accept is a concern is that the status quo -
> based on NPAPI plugins - at least enables any browser to support any plugin.
> There is an open EME bug for this interoperability issue. But we also know
> that Flash and Silverlight - or plugins generally - are not a long-term
> solution.
>
> ...Mark
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Emmanuel Revah
>> http://manurevah.com
>>
>>
>



-- 
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 15:27:20 UTC