On 02/12/2013 04:41 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Actually, Henri, you're conflating Flash (or Silverlight) availability
> with "known licensing terms for DRM module". That's not actually true,
> for two reasons - first, that Flash (or Silverlight) is not universally
> available beyond desktop systems, and secondly, just having Flash
> doesn't mean that Flash-DRMed content is universally available. (E.g.,
> much DRMed content was blocked on Google TV, despite having the Flash
> runtime.)
>
> My point is simply that using Flash (or Silverlight) as a prerequisite
> runtime for DRM does not mean having Flash/SL is the same as having a
> license to the DRM "box". All that using Flash/SL meant was that that
> runtime was a prerequisite, not that it was sufficient to equal "you can
> run this on an arbitrary machine with Flash/SL." Owners still could (and
> did) restrict the content further.
Could. Did. And still do. See attachment.
- Sam Ruby
