Re: Need for culture access with non-mainstream OSes (was Re: Campaign...)

On 2014-01-11 07:24 Mark Watson wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:32 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
> >>> On 2014-01-10 07:11 Mark Watson wrote:
> >>>> FWIW, EME *can* be fully implemented under a copyleft open source
> >>>> license on platforms that expose the necessary capabilities. That
> >>>> is presently only Windows, but nontheless.

> >>> we've been over this...
> >>> 
> >>> EME is only half the system,
> >>> the other half is an unspecified black box by design
> >>> 
> >>> so, no, it can not be fully implemented, half the implementation
> >>> depends on the blessing/help from the CDM-manufacturer, which
> >>> automatically means anything non-mainstream can forget about it
 
> >> Please re-read what I said more carefully. When the CDM component is
> >> included in the platform and available through public APIs, then a
> >> complete working implementation of client-side content protection
> >> using EME can be supported in a FOSS browser. I believe this is the
> >> case (or soon will be) for Windows.
 
> > Unless you consider “Microsoft Windows” to be “non-mainstream”, this is
> > not a counterexample to what cobaco wrote.
> > 
> > W3C must not develop recommendations that will (if they're widely
> > adopted by the “content industry”) have the effect of making it
> > impossible to access a significant part of culture (that which is
> > distributed by the “content industry”) using non-mainstream operating
> > systems (including non-mainstream versions of Free Software operating
> > systems)!
 
> If anything has this effect, it's certainly not W3C recommendations,
> as we have extensively discussed.

current W3C recommendations haven't had that effect,
EME+CDM with black box CDM parts *will*

it goes as follows:
- only half the spec part is specified, the other part is a black box
- to get to play, you need both parts, which means you'll need to convince the 
black box manufacturers to support your setup
- simple economics means that inevitably everyone on a non-mainstream platform 
will be left out in the cold for the black box part, and it being a black box 
they won't be able to help themselves out

A spec where half the spec is a black box explicitly tilts the playing field.
Standards are supposed to level the playing field, not tilt it.

A standards organization that approves 'standards' that tilt the playing field, 
is a standards organization that has lost its credibility .

W3C hasn't fallen yet, but the content industry is definitely trying to push it 
of the cliff.
-- 
Cheers

Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 20:30:37 UTC