On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > Outside of the technical falsehood being expressed here (one of the goals > EME is seeking is to remove the need for plugins), the EFF continues to > couple EME with DRM, despite the W3C expressly stating the contrary: > > "W3C is not developing a new DRM system, nor are we embracing DRM as an > organization." - http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/03/drm_and_the_open_web.html EME doesn't have any use in itself. It is one half of the DRM, the other half of which is CDMs. This is NOT about the W3C "endorsing DRM", despite what the EFF propaganda > might want you to believe; it is about where this technical effort is going > to happen (because it WILL happen), and how much oversight and input > average > netizens can provide. > It comes down to 2 choices: work on it in the open at the W3C, or have the > work continue elsewhere or behind closed doors where we have no (or less) > input on the outcome. There is no third option. The work on CDMs is already behind closed doors. It won't be disclosed. It isn't of any use to anybody who isn't in the "club". You don't have any use of EME, since you already have the vendors and the content distributors in your pocket. That's all you ever need. It's not a question IF the work is being used to seggregate platforms and work is being conducted behind closed doors, inside walled gardens and to the detriment of diversity and open and equal access. The only question is why you would need EME to do it.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 22:07:14 UTC