- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:28:28 -0400
- To: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 7/12/2013 10:15 AM, Emmanuel Revah wrote: > On 2013/07/12 00:37, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > >> If these systems are also interested in viewing premium content, they >> also already have proprietary software to view that content. >> >> If they are not interested in viewing the premium content, they won't >> have EME either. > > > The term "premium content" should not be used in this discussion. We've already had this discussion extensively on the list and tried unsuccessfully to find a word we can all agree on. The more complete description is that certain content owners invested a great deal to create certain content and therefore have expressed a requirement to protect that content. 'Premium' content was an abbreviation. So the proper way for me to have made my point was by saying: "If these systems are also interested in viewing content whose owners invested a great deal to create and therefore have a desire to protect that content, they already have proprietary software to view that content. If they are not interested in viewing content whose owners invested a great deal to create and therefore have a desire to protect that content, they won't have EME either." I don't think that this more lengthy description changes my dismissal of the argument that EME is relevant to the Prism program. > I don't believe that the W3C should consider different classes of > content. > > > One way to interpret this remark is that W3C should not have accepted the "content protection" requirement of the Web and TV Interest Group - which of course has been well debated on this list.
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 17:28:35 UTC