- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:57:12 +0300
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > Again, it doesn't seem to me that the situation is qualitatively different > as between <object> and EME. It's been claimed that the fact the EME is > targeted at DRM wheras <object> has wider scope is what makes it > qualitatively different, but I don't think that really holds water. It seems that people are more okay with generic things that can also do things that they disapprove of than with special-purpose things that only do things that they disapprove of. Consider the Sony Betamax case. The VCR was considered to be legitimate, because it had substantial non-infringing uses. At the time <object> was created, it had substantial non-DRM uses. EME, on the other hand, doesn't have substantial non-DRM uses. Personally, I think arguing on a level of principle that <object> is OK but EME is not is not a particularly good line of argument, since we're headed very quickly to a situation where <object> has no substantial non-DRM uses left in practice. However, as far as practical matters go, what makes <object> less exclusionary right now is the broader platform and cross-browser availability of DRM components that integrate with <object>. Consider Microsoft PlayReady on desktop for example. A version that integrates with <object> is available for Windows from Windows XP all the way up and including Windows 8.1 and also for Mac, but a version that suitable for EME is only available bundled with Windows 8.1. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@hsivonen.fi http://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 05:57:40 UTC