- From: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:05:32 +0100
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013-11-25 12:42 Mark Watson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Milan Zamazal <pdm@zamazal.org> wrote: > > >>>>> "JF" == John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> writes: > > JF> On my open web however, you don't need somebody else's > > JF> permission to do something, that's the beauty of the web being > > JF> truly open. > > Exactly, it would be nice if all technologies mandated and promoted by > > W3C standards could be used and implemented to the full extent by anyone > > without asking for permission. > And, indeed, the EME specification will have that property, just the same > as <object> in HTML. Proprietary DRM systems obviously don't have that > property, but noone is suggesting the W3C mandate or promote them any more > than it mandates or promotes Microsoft Silverlight, for example. we've been over this: - EME by itself is nonfunctional without the accompanying CDM, - the CDM's that will be used in practice are _all_ going to be platform specific black boxes (tied to e.g. the windowsonly PlayReady) that will require permission to implement. - there are 0 known plans for anything where this isn't true (beyond clearkey demos) Ergo stating that EME can be freely implemented while myopically correct is disingenuous at best Which means that W3C promoting EME is and will be seen by most people as W3C promoting black boxes. The amount of criticism W3C has already received (from pretty much everyone except the media moguls) makes that abundantly clear. -- Cheers
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 09:06:01 UTC