- From: Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:39:26 +0100
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Duncan Bayne wrote: > Therefore, for practical purposes, EME can be considered merely an > integral part of an end-to-end closed source proprietary DRM system. > That is why it's inimical to the W3C mission, and why the W3C should > reject it utterly. Could EME not be considered a 'window', the transition point from Open Source (OS) to the closed DRM system? In the same way the most people use the proprietary h.264 codec to view video online, the codec is not OS but it is played from OS browsers/rendering engines. Given that big players have or are implementing something like EME, wouldn't it be better for browser vendors like Mozilla to have a stable, well thought out spec? For me, the only argument that remained against doing the spec at W3C was that a major delay could help an alternative (better) scheme to be created. However, no one has significantly progressed with that, so here we are: Google and MS are well underway with EME. They could easily get enough momentum with users and content-providers that no one is going to back an alternative in the short term, so now it's just a matter of how (and where) it gets specced, not if. -Alastair NB: Personally I do consider DRM a flawed idea in the realm of Turing machines, but without a viable alternative *now* it doesn't matter. It does not stop anyone working on an alternative later.
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 08:39:54 UTC