W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

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

From: Christian Kaiser <kaiserc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 18:28:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CACinLHUqiTnxqvwX4h4G91uvRMqDtk60fUmeH7u5DAOs2KpUrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>

This is Christian Kaiser from YouTube. I wanted to chime in on this
discussion. *

*HTML5 is a strategic platform for YouTube’s future, both on the
traditional web via browsers as well as on on consumer electronics devices.

As a content distributor, YouTube supports the Encrypted Media proposal. *

If implemented widely, it would allow content distributors to bridge the
supply of premium content with the great demand for such content by users,
in a way that avoids platform lock-in and sidesteps fragmentation that are
known to hurt users in tangible ways.
Ultimately, it would help to unlock the full benefits of open web standards
on a whole new class of devices, carrying the scalable m:n model of the web
into the living room and thus enabling broad competition and innovation.


On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 16:48, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Mark Watson wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, what I meant was that customers should not expect to buy a TV that
> >> does not support Netflix, plug it into the Internet and *without any
> >> other device* access our service.
> >
> > Why not?
> Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. It's Friday. My point was an
> empirical one that customers *today* do not expect to be able to do this
> *today* and this is different from the mp3 case.
> I would love for it to be the case in future that every TV you can buy
> supports Netflix. That is why we brought our proposal.
> >
> > Customers do expect to buy an Internet device (phone, computer, TV,
> > tablet, refrigerator, etc), plug it into the Internet, and *without any
> > other device* access Bing, Facebook, GMail, Wikipedia, Twitter, Amazon,
> > LinkedIn, MSN, Yahoo!, WordPress, eBay, IMDB, Craiglist, Flickr,
> > Pinterest, Windows Live, YouTube, PayPal, Tumblr, the White House home
> > page, Blogger, Reddit, Slashdot, The New York Times, my home page, the
> > W3C's site, the Bank of America site, eHow, porn sites, Dictionary.com,
> > MySpace, LiveJournal, C|NET, The Guardian, Yelp, Digg, the Wall Street
> > Journal, the Supreme Court Web site, Orkut, HP, the Telegraph,
> > TripAdvisor, Citibank, Groupon, Expedia, Intuit, Forbes, iStockPhoto,
> > Samsung's home page, the LA Times, the Drudge Report, NewEgg, AllRecipes,
> > Verizon Wireless, the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation,
> > BeNaughty.com, Time, CafePress, The Onion, Techmeme, Duck Duck Go, Kiva,
> > Airbnb, Quora, McDonald's, Khan Academy, Open Yale Courses,
> MacRumors.com,
> > NetCraft, E*Trade, The Escapist Magazine, Picasa, Groklaw, Barnes and
> > Noble, Maddox's page, ArsTechnica, the Huffington Post, Business Insider,
> > Gizmodo, 37signals, Fragsworth's fractal canvas, Zeldman's blog,
> > truthout, BP's home page, the Obama reelection campaign Web site, GitHub,
> > Twit.tv, Politico, the Washington Post, ...
> >
> > Why exactly would NetFlix be special?
> Because we offer content not available at any of those sites. Content that
> is licensed differently from the content those sites offer.
> Not just Netflix, any service that offers similar content.
> >
> > The *entire point* of Web standards is that you *can* plug in any
> > arbitrary Internet device and get the entire Web. If you undermine that,
> > there's no point having a standard. Might as well stay with the plugins..
> I completely agree. That's exactly why we propose the extensions we
> propose. So that we can get to a situation where any TV you can buy can
> support this content.
> >
> >
> >> I was pointing out a qualitative difference from the expectation of a
> >> customer who buys an mp3 from vendor X and expects it work on any mp3
> >> player, whether or not the player contains any 'X-stuff'
> >
> > The difference is that the customer thinks "the music industry finally
> > gets it" and "the movie industry still doesn't get it".
> Again, authors have the right to license their works however they choose
> (within the law). Software authors and movie authors alike. You may not
> agree with all their choices but I hope you support their right to make
> those choices.
> At Netflix we don't have customers telling us that we 'don't get it'. It's
> often argued that all customers want is easy, convenient, reasonably-priced
> and legal access to content and they become frustrated with industries that
> refuse to offer them that. But that is exactly what we are offering and
> what we want to make possible with HTML5.
> ...Mark
> >
> > Just because they're used to being scammed doesn't make it ok to do it.
> >
> > --
> > Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> > http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,..
> > Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
> >
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 09:16:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:49 UTC