Re: Response from Director to formal objection "Turn off EME by default and activate only with express permission from user"

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:10 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 12, 2017, at 10:50 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> >
> > Again, please actually stay on topic.
> >
> > There is *obviously* a profit motive in DRM. Otherwise, it would not
> exist. There is also an obvious collusion
>
> Google, please define collusion:
>
> col·lu·sion
> kəˈlo͞oZHən/
> noun
>         • secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order
> to cheat or deceive others.
>
> Wild accusations of this kind are unacceptable. This conversation is at an
> end.
>


I think that again you are going off topic to avoid the topic at hand.

I did not imply secret, although it should be mentioned as true that for
some browser vendors there is are multiple parts of the company that owns
different components of the platform, where one is a browser and the other
is a media-streaming service. That's not a wild conspiracy theory, it's the
reality of how these company works and is self-evident even to end
consumers. That's why browser vendors are not neutral in this case, and
other cases as well.

I do think the collusion in this case can be considered unfair, or possibly
cheating users out of rights. You may not agree with me, but I think the
European Commission will have something to say on possible anti-trust
issues within three months, as is legally binding.

https://juliareda.eu/2017/04/open-letter-to-the-european-commission-on-encrypted-media-extensions/

Earlier, the European Commission has considered bundling of OS, browser,
and other services as in violation of anti-trust rules. Adding DRM puts
European copyright twist on it, given European exceptions and limitations
to copyright are not harmonized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/google-europe-antitrust.htm

  cheers,
      harry


>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>