- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:35:05 -0700
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> As I've explained multiple times, anyone could build a CDM that makes use > of platform capabilities, as indeed the one Microsoft is shipping does. > There's no reason in principle why such a CDM could not be Free Software, > as far as I am aware. Except that for *GPL the keys would have to be in the clear, which means that - in practice - no Hollywood-accepted DRM system will be released as source. I thought this was fairly well agreed upon, & that the debate centered on whether the incompatibility between CDMs and FOSS was a proper concern of the W3C? > What browsers implement and ship is up to them and we've every reason to > believe that browsers will want to support these APIs in order to enable > their users to access what we call "premium" content (on the basis that > it's only available if you pay for it - I don't really see how that's > propaganda). I've explained my position on this elsewhere on the list: "My concern with the term is that it implies a hierarchy of value - with that type of content (basically, Hollywood movies and expensive TV shows) at the top. I don't think it's language we should be using." Several alternatives were floated, my favourite of which is "DRM-enabled content". But that's a side issue, which distracts from the main concern: that the Netflix press release is pure sophistry; while it's true that it's *possible* that Hollywood-approved CDMs will be released as FOSS, in practice, that won't happen. -- Duncan Bayne ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype: duncan_bayne I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number.
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 23:35:28 UTC