Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> > 1) THE W3C IS NOT WORKING ON A DRM SOLUTION!
> > (Shouting most certainly intended. You can repeat this falsehood as often
> > as you wish, it will not magically make it true).
>
> Shouting doesn't make your position true, either.
>
> EME has no purpose other than to facilitate DRM - specifically, to
> provide an interop mechanism between Javascript and CDMs.
>
> Therefore, EME is DRM.  It simply has no other purpose for existing.
>
> To claim that EME is not DRM is pure sophistry.
>

I gave a number of other purposes in a previous mail. Nevertheless, even if
it did have no other purpose, or if those other purposes were irrelevant,
it does not follow that EME and DRM are the same. This is obvious if you
consider what would be be necessary to specify a DRM system: rights
specification, message formats, message security, individualization, root
of trust, robustness rules etc. etc. None of these things are included in
EME so it cannot be the same as DRM. It's not sophistry, it's just a fact.

By all means argue the case that EME is only intended for DRM. Certainly
that is the purpose we proposed it for and there is no secret about that.
But it is simply misleading to claim that we intend to specify a DRM system
at W3C, which is generally how the claim that "EME is DRM" is interpreted
outside this forum.

...Mark


>
> --
> Duncan Bayne
> ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
> duncan_bayne
>
> I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
> urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number.
>
>
>