- From: Joshua Gay <jgay@fsf.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 19:38:20 -0400
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
- CC: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
On 06/06/2013 07:38 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > Second, I don't believe that the purpose of EME is to deny access to > data. There are existing CDM schemes that manage (or restrict/deny) > access to data. The purpose of EME is to enhance interoperability by > providing a common means to incorporate such schemes and data into a > user experience - when the user chooses to do so. I am still struggling to understand this statement. Are you saying that you believe that the kinds of the CDM schemes the authors of EME have in mind *will* be designed in such a way that a user will have access to the unencrypted data that resides on his or her computer? Again, when I say "access", I'm not talking about legal rights with the data or the usefulness of the data format -- I literally mean the most basic access to data residing on a persons computer. For example a user might run it through a virus scanner or look at the data in a hex editor. All of the arguments in favor of EME that you have presented seem to hinge on this idea of "protected content", <http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html>. Am I wrong in my understanding -- do you believe that the use of the term "copy protection" by the proponents is not primarily about denying users access to the unencrypted data on their machines? Josh PS. I apologize for the rude and disrespectful nature of my previous reply and hope you will look past my indiscretion.
Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 23:38:48 UTC