Re: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

On Friday, June 14, 2013, Matt Ivie wrote:

> "I don't follow the logic in that statement. Just because W3C can do
> >>nothing
> >>to reconcile the incompatible licensing choices of copyleft software
> >>authors and Hollywood content authors we should do nothing to improve
> >>the
> >>technology situation for everyone else ?"
> Are you saying that the software licenses chosen by the two parties are
> incompatible or that copyleft software is incompatible with the copyrights
> of Hollywood films? I'm assuming you mean the former but I just wanted to
> clarify.


I mean the facts that:
- Hollywood licenses include (by choice of the authors) requirements that
the content only be delivered to players with a certain kind of
non-user-modifiable component, and
- Copyleft software licenses include (by choice of the authors)
requirements that the software may not be used inside non-user-modifiable
components

The consequence of these choices is that I can't deliver content obtained
under one of these Hollywood licenses to players built entirely from
copyleft software. This is not something W3C can fix.

...Mark

>
> Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> > It's
> >>> > not
> >>> > an argument against a capability to say that there exists hardware
> >>or
> >>> > software than cannot support it. I can point to such
> >>hardware/software
> >>> > for
> >>> > any given aspect of the web.
> >>>
> >>> "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to
> >>all
> >>> people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure,
> >>..."
> >>>
> >>> EME is not a step towards this.  It is specifically designed to
> >>restrict
> >>> certain media to the subset of people who have a particular
> >>combination
> >>> of hardware, software and network infrastructure that is blessed by
> >>the
> >>> CDM vendors.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The media in question is already restricted to those people. EME
> >>doesn't do
> >>that. If anything, EME will increase the set of people able to access
> >>the
> >>media. Think about it: those people are the potential customer base
> >>for
> >>services like ours, why would we want to reduce the size of that set ?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > It is progress towards the goal if such software can be made more
> >>widely
> >>> > available (more platforms).
> >>>
> >>> You keep saying that, as though there is something about the EME
> >>> proposal that makes this more likely.  What evidence have you to
> >>support
> >>> that assertion?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Admittedly I don't have empirical evidence at this stage. It's very
> >>early.
> >>But it's certainly a goal. A reason to believe it's likely is that
> >>porting
> >>Flash and Silverlight to more platforms is unlikely to happen, since
> >>that
> >>are substantial pieces of software (complete presentation/execution
> >>environments) with - in the case of Silverlight - an announced
> >>end-of-life.
> >>By contrast, CDMs will be much smaller in scope and therefore easier
> >>to
> >>port. Both the vendors and the customers of CDMs have an incentive to
> >>support as many platforms as possible in order to maximize their
> >>revenue
> >>and potential customer base respectively.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > As for languages, there is nothing in EME that restricts the
> >>number or
> >>> > kind
> >>> > of languages supported and I can say that at least for our service
> >>DRM in
> >>> > no way restricts the languages we offer with our content. You seem
> >>to
> >>> > have
> >>> > accepted John F's arguments on accessibility.
> >>>
> >>> And note my weaker language on those points initially; "probably"
> >>rather
> >>> than "most assuredly not".  My understanding of the intended
> >>> implementation of CDMs is that they will be closed-source,
> >>proprietary
> >>> blobs.  The content they 'protect' will not be available in the
> >>clear.
> >>> This means that users cannot extend the system to support languages
> >>> other than those supported by the CDM vendor, and can't use machine
> >>> translation on the content either.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Why do you think CDMs will have any language-specific functionality at
> >>all
> >>?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > Regarding geographic location, to my knowledge the DRM products
> >>that are
> >>> > likely to be made into CDMs don't support that. The CDM would need
> >>> > some privileged access to an accurate geo-location service,
> >>something
> >>> > which
> >>> > I think would be technically difficult. That's not to say Internet
> >>video
> >>> > services don't have geo-restrictions, just that they aren't
> >>enforced
> >>> > using
> >>> > DRM, to my knowledge.
> >>>
> >>>--
> Sent from my Replicant phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> Visit replicant.us
>