Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

"No, you are missing my point entirely. Microsoft ship PlayReady as part of
Windows Media Foundation. In principle, any browser running on Windows can
make use of the same APIs that Internet Explorer uses to play back
protected content. The DRM is contained in the Operating System, not
shipped with the browser. What we call a CDM in this case is the shim
between the EME API and the platform APIs. This does rely on MS making
those APIs publicly available, which is why I say "in principle".
Nevertheless, we hope MS will do this and that browsers will take advantage
of those APIs or find some other way to support the JS APIs.

You are right that a CDM that implements all the capabilities of the DRM
itself, in software, without making use of platform APIs for that purpose,
couldn't be Free Software as it is required to be non-user-modifiable."

Your first paragraph was more on point with the idea that browsers running
in the Windows environment could make us of the APIs on Windows systems.

The second paragraph was more vague and can be interpreted as expecting the
same behaviour in all Operating Systems. Taken in context with only the
first paragraph one could draw the conclusion that you're only talking
about the Windows environment but taken in context with the broader
conversation it ties into ideas previously discussed.

In regard to whether running the non-free software on the OS in order to
give an API for EME to tie into, and whether or not it is considered a fair
exchange or a compromise:

Clearly it is a matter of opinion. I think that's why this whole thing is
such a point of debate. The problem though, is this: While the specs for
creating a CDM might be open, there is no way to make the CDM free
software. No matter how you slice it, the only way to make hollywood movies
available under this scheme is by the use of some non-free software. That I
know of, there are no other W3C standards that can't be implemented in Free
Software. I know that to someone that would gladly trade away their
computing freedoms for convenience and features this seems like a very
trivial argument to have.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 16:43 -0700, Mark Watson wrote:
> >>
> >> You are right that a CDM that implements all the capabilities of the
> >> DRM itself, in software, without making use of platform APIs for that
> >> purpose, couldn't be Free Software as it is required to be
> >> non-user-modifiable.
> >
> > This statement also assumes that the platform that the CDM is running on
> > has APIs that support Digital Restrictions Management.
>
> Actually, my preceding statement assumed that. I think you highlighted
> the wrong part.
>
> > If that's the
> > case then then something running in the OS isn't Free Software either
> > and there is a required compromise for this solution as well. You're
> > just moving the non-free software to a different part of the system.
>
> Sure. I don't think I said, or even implied, anything else (though
> whether you consider it a compromise, or a fair exchange, is a matter
> of personal opinion.)
>
> ...Mark
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > /* Free software is a matter of liberty, not price.
> >   Visit GNU.org * FSF.org * Trisquel.info */
> >
>



-- 
/* Free software is a matter of liberty not price.
    Visit www.GNU.org * www.FSF.org * www.trisquel.info */