Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Jul 5, 2013, at 17:08 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> What I think is not very helpful is to try to stop something happening
>> when there is no better alternative offered.
> 
> You and other pro-EME folks on this list are making that point
> repeatedly,

I think I have indicated I am not totally happy with the current solution.  I just can't think of a better.

> but that point rests entirely upon the assumption that the
> W3C will work towards standardising *some* sort of DRM system.

Really?  I am not sure it's so.  I know of OMA PDCF (an openly specified DRM), ISMACryp (encryption format), DECE common encryption (ditto), Sun's open media commons, and so on, and am unaware of any indication that the W3C wants to (or needs to) do another.

> It is exactly that assumption that myself and others are trying to
> challenge.  We are saying that DRM is inimical to several core values of
> the W3C, and therefore should not become a W3C standard.


Well, as I say, I don't think that the W3C is likely to get any further into this.

> Put another way, the better alternative on offer is for the W3C to
> explicitly reject DRM.

And reject all the content that the owners are unwilling (or unable, for contractual reasons) to offer without it.  There is a baby with this bathwater, you know.

> Your "no better alternative" argument reminds me of a character on the
> old TV show, Yes Minister, called Jim Hacker:
> 
> "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it."


No, this is the best balance I have seen actually spelled out. That is rather different.  We can ignore the issue, or do the best we can.  This reduces the footprint of the problem from a full-on plug-in like Flash, to 'just' the DRM.





David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 03:18:43 UTC