Re: What would we have to demonstrate to change your mind?

On 6/10/2013 6:53 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:

Good framing.  Thanks.

> Jeff, & those in favour of the EME proposal:

I don't think I have expressed support for the EME proposal per se. 
Although I have often put in context why principles against EME 
(openness) need to be balanced against principles in favor of EME 
(rights of content owners to have content protection).

W3C has (1) accepted the content protection requirement as a valid 
requirement for the HTML Working Group and (2) recognized that the EME 
draft proposal is currently the only proposal that the WG is developing 
- which led to the publication of the Working Draft.

>
> In order to change *my* mind - that is, for me to start supporting the
> EME proposal, you'd need to show either:
>
>   - a use case for EME that is not DRM, and which has demand from
>   industry

One such "use case" is Open Source, breakable DRM.

>
> ... or ...
>
>   - that CDM implementations would honour the W3C mission, that is,  be
>   "available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network
>   infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or
>   physical or mental ability."

I doubt that this can be addressed to your satisfaction. Presumably, CDM 
implementations might offer their solution to work with any hardware or 
software - but of course the developers of the hardware and software 
platform would reject that offer.

>
> What would those of us opposed to the EME proposal have to demonstrate
> in order to change your mind - that is, in order for you to abandon
> support for EME and start opposing it instead?

Again, W3C has not formally supported EME.  But in the spirit of your 
question...

(1) If someone provided a compelling reason why owners of content don't 
have a valid requirement to protect their content; then once the 
requirement were to disappear, the proposed solution (EME) would disappear.

or

(2) As I've said several times, if someone had a different technical 
proposal that addresses the requirement, then the Working Group might 
prefer that different technical proposal to EME.


>

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 23:51:54 UTC