- From: Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:07:40 -0600
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>,Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Well it is restricted content, but some might object so I would just say "content". Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >>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, >>> >>> -- Sent from my Replicant phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Visit replicant.us
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 18:08:20 UTC