Re: Clarification

Mark,

I emphatically trust my UA vendor, Mozilla.  If by gatekeeper you mean that they are able to block or warn of CDMs they find untrustworthy I am quite satisfied.  As an aside I meant that I would be willing to adopt their software as soon as it has proven itself to be safe.  I realize that noone can "prove" future action in the present.  I merely meant that those with a history of respecting the rights of others are more likely to continue in such fashion.




>________________________________
> From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
>To: Brendan Aragorn <gloppius@yahoo.com> 
>Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org 
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:01 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarification
> 
>
>
>[This one, too, should be on restricted media]
>
>
>On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Brendan Aragorn <gloppius@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Mr Adams brought to my attention that my posting was rather unclear, so  I am replying to it here as well.
>>
>>
>>"
>>Glenn,
>>
>>
>>Thank you for your message.
>>On your first concern, I do not mean that they should be in anyway 
excluded, I mean that they do not warrant special rules made for their 
sole benefit.  Because something uses a great deal of bandwidth does not imply it has a greater cultural value than a work that does not.  Shakespeare as an example. 
>>
>>
>>
>>On your second, I only mean that as a percentage of internet content by 
simple count of each original work they are in the minority.
>
>
>If we are assigning value to things, cultural or otherwise, then allocating a value of 1 to every piece of content is also a rather bad way to do it. At least Internet bandwidth is somewhat related to how much people are actually watching.
>
>
>I'm not saying bandwidth is a good measure - hours viewed might be better - I'm just saying that title count is much worse. Indeed Shakespeare would not do very well on title count either, at least compared to cat videos, say.
>
>
>
>>
>>As an aside, my primary concerns are that past music and past and present software content providers, have had no ethical qualms against installing harmful rootkits
>>that open their customers devices to other harmful software.
>
>
>EME has an advantage here, since it places responsibility for integration of the CDMs with the UA vendors, who will likely demand a good understanding of what the CDM is doing in order to be able to offer the traditional security and privacy guarantees that UAs offer to users.
> 
>  Until the 
"premium" content providers prove by action they will not do this,
>
>
>Noone can *prove* that they will not do something in the future "by action" in the present. You should look to the fact that most content providers have never done this and those that did were rightly the subject of some anger and have not repeated it since.
>
>
>Furthermore, the EME proposal addresses this risk by making the UA vendors the gatekeepers, unlike the current situations with plugins. [Note that if you don't trust your UA vendor you have bigger problems every time you access an Internet Banking site, for example].
> 
>I do 
not trust their software and so prefer my content on my dvd player where it cannot actively or unitntentionally harm me. 
>
>
>See above, but of course it remains your choice to obtain the content on DVD.
> 
>  I also believe that 
open source operating systems should be supported, especially 
considering that a minor majority of the internet is running on them, 
and that most of the earths poulation cannot afford the proprietary ones.   
>>
>
>
>Linux support would be great. Microsoft is never going to support Silverlight on Linux so moving from Silverlight to EME at least offers some opportunity. Indeed, the first deployment of EME is on a Linux-based OS (ChromeOS).
>
>
>It seems that the things you want: better security/privacy protection and wider OS support are actually goals of EME, so I am not sure why you are opposed to it ?
>
>
>...Mark
> 
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
>>To: Brendan Aragorn <gloppius@yahoo.com> 
>>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:47 AM
>>Subject: Re: EME
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brendan Aragorn <gloppius@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>    I understand now more fully that the CDM requirements I suggested earlier would be highly impractical to implement, so I withdraw them.  I am not a programmer.      
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    I do believe however that the idea that the web 
requires "premium content" to be flawed, as the admittedly vast body of 
fine works of  "content providers" pale when compared to the scale of 
the web as a whole.
>>
>>
>>What you are suggesting is that the Web should intentionally exclude serving premium content providers. Given the large numbers of individuals that 
license and use premium content, this would be antithetical to actual 
practice, wouldn't it? I've heard that Netflix content accounts for a 
significant amount of overall Internet traffic.
>> 
>>It is something like a filled olympic swimming pool needing a five 
gallon bucket of water.  Counting only video Youtube alone contains many times more oroiginal content than might be lost if EME is not 
implemented.
>>
>>
>>I don't understand what this means.
>> 
>>
>>>
>>>Brendan Aragorn"
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>