Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

I agree with both Andreas objection as well as EFFs stance.

I would like to add that not only does EME not allow for independent
implementation. It also makes it impossible for ordinary web-authors to
integrate the technology "built" apparently for the "benefit" of the web.

An inquiry at Widevine (owned by google) does not license anything. Instead
Widevine refers to one of their dozen "integration partners". These
partners do not offer any kind of deal, they want you to sign an NDA first
and want to know everything about your business before they even talk to
you. Since no pricing is disclosed I can just assume that this "benefit" is
unaffordable to most but Nextflix and the like.

I am a technology integrator, and I cannot operate under such ridiculous
operations procedure. Not only is EME as a stack non-integratable for
free/libre/beer/freedom environments. It also non-integratable for the vast
majority of web-authors, small companies and independent operators.


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Gaël Pegliasco <gael@pegliasco.com> wrote:

> I totally agree with this objection.
>
> The web is open to everybody without any kind of discrimination.
>
> The fact that EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding
> open source
> implementations is totally an unacceptable level.
>
> I just remember you that today, the web is very strong because it
> massively uses open standard and open source softwares.
> Please, do not trig a bullet in our foots.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gaël,
>
>
> Le 30/05/2013 07:56, Andreas Kuckartz a écrit :
>
>  This is a Formal Objection against the Working Group Decision to publish
>> Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft
>> (FPWD).
>>
>> EME is not compatible with the Open Web and can not be made compatible
>> with it.
>>
>> For simplicity I refer to the Formal Objection raised by the EFF
>> regarding the HTML WG Draft Charter:
>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/**w3c-formal-objection-html-wg<https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>
>> In addition to that I refer to these two issues:
>>
>> EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source
>> implementations.
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967>
>>
>> That issue was "resolved" by one of the authors of EME as an alleged
>> duplicate of another issue:
>>
>> EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>
>
>