RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Matt Ivie wrote:
> 
> I know that EME can be implemented in Free Software but it's the
> Digital
> Restrictions Management I was referring to.

So then work on EME (alone) is not offensive to you? Is it legitimate then, in your opinion, to be working on EME at the W3C? 

> When you speak of
> "lightweight" Digital Restrictions Management, do you mean "breakable"?
> It's my understanding that breakable Digital Restrictions Management
> wouldn't satisfy the parties that are involved in the W3C that are
> demanding it.

You keep continually misrepresenting what is happening here. I am not sure if it is because you really do not understand, or whether you are just blinded by your outrage and obstinately being obstructionist and simply seeking to spread false information, despite being corrected numerous times on this list.

One more time:

1) Members of the W3C are working on an open API - EME - that will allow for a standardized implementation of CDM support in the browsers. It is acknowledged that *at this time* commercial CDMs are "closed" and proprietary.

2) The W3C management have continually stated that the director of the W3C has ruled that work on EME is in scope for the HTML5 Working Group. This work is at the beginning of the W3C Recommendation process, but has not yet emerged as a W3C "standard".

3) The W3C has publicly stated that work on "DRM" (and work on the CDMs) is not part of this W3C work effort, is NOT in scope for the HTMLr Working Group,and that there is no intention at this time that sees work on DRM happening at the W3C.

4) The only people making *demands* at this time are you and others opposed to Digital Rights Management. You are demanding that the W3C not do standards work that is perfectly legitimate, legal and desired by members of the W3C. It has continually been pointed out that this work will likely continue whether or not the W3C "blesses" the nascent standard: the EME 'standard' will still emerge, and will still be adopted by browsers (to date, at least 2 already have), because the W3C has no "power" to force those browsers to do, or not do, anything.

> 
> So what other W3C standards can't be implemented in Free Software?

The <object> element (http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/the-iframe-element.html#the-object-element) allows for the embedding of non-html content inside of a web document, including content such as Flash and Silverlight that is not "Free Software". 

The <video> and <audio> elements allow for the use of non-open codecs such as MP3 and MP4(H.264) - a codec that Mozilla acknowledges is not "open" (encumbered format), but that they will support (especially on the mobile platform) - https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/

<object> has been part of the HTML 4 standard since 1999, and the <video> and <audio> elements are part of HTML5, an emergent standard at the W3C that is still not a formal Recommendation.

However, these three HTML elements, like EME, can be implemented by browsers that are "Free Software", but they may not work for all users and computing stacks due to other dependencies outside of the W3C sphere, including end-user choice to use, or not use, certain operating systems that can or cannot support specific technologies. This is a problem that the W3C cannot fix. 


> I
> don't know of any myself and aside from suggestions that /maybe/ there
> could be a weak DRM implementation done in Free Software that could
> appease people, no one can seem to answer this question.

No one has brought forth an example for testing and evaluation.

If you want a Free Software instance of DRM, you or others should produce one for evaluation. 

There is a time for talking, and a time for doing. It is now time for the doing - so please, go do it.

I commit publicly here that I will argue and fight just as hard to have a fair and open evaluation of that Free Software DRM/CDM/Content Protection system, but neither I or anyone else can *insist* that others use that solution: it will be evaluated against all the other solutions in the market-place, and those companies that are looking for a Content Protection system today will make the choice that best meets their business needs. 

I suspect that if your system is as good or better than existing solutions that it will be looked at favorably, as it will have as its unique market advantage the ability to be used on platforms that currently cannot support the proprietary CDM solutions out there.

In the colloquial, it's time to fish or cut bait. The ball is firmly in your court.

JF

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 05:22:09 UTC