Re: Open Source implementations Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

I must be missing something here. I don't understand the use of
inflammatory language (treating a user as an adversary) to describe a
common commercial relationship. Expecting people to pay for goods and
services they voluntarily choose to use is basic commercial enterprise.
It's not generally considered adversarial to requires someone to pay for
their groceries at the cash register before they walk out of the store.

I will freely admit that there are still questions to resolve (e.g. If you
legitimately purchase an item under one licensing system, you might expect
to have rights to use the same item under a different licensing system).
However, that's far different from suggesting that the consumers desired
rights somehow trump the rights of the producer.

I think an analog to commercial transactions in the real world is a
reasonable objective.

-Clarke Stevens

On 2/25/12 11:55 AM, "Henri Sivonen" <> wrote:

>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:
>> You over-generalize when you
>> imply that one such restrictive license effectively prohibits a
>> use of a mechanism with a non-restrictive policy.
>What would be a meaningful use of the proposed mechanism with a
>non-restrictive policy? (HTML5 video already supports cases where the
>user is not treated as an adversary.)
>Henri Sivonen

Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 19:23:51 UTC