Re: Forwarded Invite to Discussion of EME at the European Parliament, Oct. 15, 11:00-13:00

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:22 AM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> Fair enough, although others seem to be arguing some of those things.
>
> Sure, including myself when I get drawn in :)
>
>> I think you could argue though that preventing a class of content from
>> being on the open web is harmful to it. I.e. it reduces the utility of
>> the open web for a use-case that affects a lot of users.
>
> Absolutely.  But DRM-restricted content won't *be* on the open web, at
> least not as it's defined by the W3C at the moment.

But they are, and will continue to be, through <object>. Or is
<object> something defined by W3C but not part of the 'open web' (as
you define it) ?

I personally have no problem with EME having essentially the same
formal status as <object>, if that helps.


>
>> Walled garden type technologies (plugins / appliances) benefit to the
>> detriment of the open web.
>>
>> I can't say that will happen, but I do consider that a strong
>> possibility.
>
> But CDMs *are* a walled garden technology!  They are closed-source,
> proprietary blobs that can only be implemented by the companies that own
> them, that are incompatible with FOSS licenses, and that support only
> 'blessed' combinations of browser, OS and hardware.
>
> In what way do you see that as being an advantage over, say, an app from
> an app store?
>
> --
> 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.
>

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 14:13:21 UTC