- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:04:31 -0400
- To: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 7/12/2013 2:00 PM, Emmanuel Revah wrote: > On 2013/07/12 19:28, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> 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. > > > With all due respect, you appear to be missing the point. > > "Premium" is the wrong word (semantics and all that stuff): > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premium > > A set of standards either is or is not, the standards for the Open Web > should not be for "premium" stuffs. It is for all content or for no > content. > > Users of the standards can then decide to implement EME or not and > they can do so according to their own reasoning. > > > The word you should want to use is "restricted content" or eventually > "protected content", but certainly not "premium content". I don't think I'm missing the point. The first thing that I said above was "we tried unsuccessfully to find a word we can all agree on". If I had used "restricted content", I would have been criticized by those who didn't like that term. > > > > Best regards, > >
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 18:04:36 UTC