- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:57:05 -0700
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> You might not think that the distinction is important, in which case > you should just say that. But there is a distinction which some people > do think is important and so it causes confusion when you represent > these two different things as the same. I thought I had been very explicit in saying just that. Earlier I posted: "The reason EME is being proposed is to enable DRM. Netflix, Microsoft and Google are interested in it for no other purpose. No-one (to my knowledge) has proposed that EME might be used for any *other* purpose than interop with DRM systems. Therefore, EME is a component of DRM systems, nothing more, nothing less." My reasoning here is fairly simple. EME is a component of DRM systems, and has no other purpose. Therefore, in recommending EME, W3C is recommending DRM. -- Duncan Bayne ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype: duncan_bayne I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number. /
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 04:57:28 UTC