- From: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 6 Oct 2013 11:10:13 +0200
- To: "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Jeff Jaffe: > An interesting rebuttal to EFF's arguments, complete with a response > from EFF. > > Jeff > > Dear EFF: please don't pick the wrong fight > http://chris.improbable.org/2013/10/4/dear-eff/ > Chris Adams The author of that text does not understand what he is writing about and it is noteworthy that you consider this to be a rebuttal to EFF's arguments. Chris Adams wrote: "there is no meaningful distinction between what EME proposes and what is already the case with a browser plugin. If Firefox can play Flash or Silverlight content, it can decrypted video using a CDM which is either included in the host operating system, bundled under an agreement similar to Chrome's Flash plugin or installed by the user." On the three alternatives: - "included in the host operating system": *No* relevant CDM will be included in *any* user modifiable / Open Source operating system. - "bundled under an agreement similar to Chrome's Flash plugin": Chrome is closed source. And the Chrome OS containing EME and CDMs is as locked as can be. That is *worse* than a Flash plugin. - "installed by the user" There will be *no* relevant CDM which can be installed and used on *any* user modifiable / Open Source operating system. Cheers, Andreas
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 09:11:46 UTC