W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > February 2013

RE: EME FPWD CfC is closed

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W117426C76CE5B799F309902AA080@phx.gbl>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>

> Subject: Re: EME FPWD CfC is closed
> From: singer@apple.com
>> The other obvious alternative is to simply use an external native application.
> OK, so you are OK with copyrighted protected content existing, you just don't want it accessible using web technologies.  I think that you are relegating the web to be a rather impoverished environment if 'valuable' content is kept away.  Kinda like a news-stand that only stocks free newspapers -- if you want the New York Times, you have to go elsewhere.  That's not a great place to go for a broad choice.
Using 'Web Intents' to start a native DRM videos player application from the web browser could be very seamless and a good user experience.  It does not require controversial standards integrated into HTML, and we can work on the support now.  The PUA CG is exploring a declarative markup for Web Intents that might make launching a DRM video player possible using markup alone.  Platforms that support a DRM CDM would be expected to also support a native DRM video player.  Such a solution would appear to address your concerns?

> And the existence of valued, protected content, in no way impedes your ability to build free content into the web, either.  It's not that it's "in your way".

No, but it does blur the distinction between DRM and non-DRM, and also changes the balance of power, to an extent that I find unacceptable.

>> Most web users can live without DRM, and are better off to quarantine it in dedicated hardware, or a separate native app. if they insist.
> I think making choices for all the users of the internet as to what they can access is a pretty big step.  I, for example, don't watch broadcast television, but I would be hesitant to try to impose that it doesn't belong on the public airwaves.

I think there is a big difference between dictating that people not watch 'broadcast television' and dictating that they watch DRM videos on the Internet using a separate native app. or hardware rather than a web app.  But I accept some criticism for trying to dictate - I just think it is reasonable to request DRM not be part of HTML and for users to use a separate application.   If it was a free-for-all then there would be no standards and the Internet would be full of proprietary applications.


Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:00:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:32 UTC