Re: Danger of DRM technologies stack

On 2013-11-25 17:15 John Foliot wrote:
> Milan Zamazal 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.
 
> Allow me to repeat it once again (and again, and again, and again...)
> 
> NO-ONE is mandated to do ANYTHING with W3C Standards - there is no mandate!
> Period. The End.
> 
> The W3C is not a government or "ruling force" - there are no enforcement
> officers, there is no penalty for not using W3C standards, or for providing
> incomplete support. Large swaths of the internet today willfully ignore W3C
> standards
> (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.google.com&charset=%28detect+automati
> cally%29&doctype=Inline&group=0) and yet the web keeps working.
> 
> Browser developers are free to support, or not support EME as they choose.
> Developers and content owners are free to use, or not use EME with any
> specific CDM or collection of CDMs. 
> Users are free to choose a browser with EME support, or one without EME
> support.

No, browser developpers will not be free to implement interoperability with 
any specific CDM...

Likewise. users will often not have the freedom to choose a browser with 
support for EME and the needed CDM...

The reason for this is a direct consequence of CDM's being black boxes. Which 
means they will be restricted tot the (mainstream) platforms supported by the 
CDM manufacturer 

That translates into anyone on a non-supported platform not having the choice 
to use EME with the needed CDM (as the manufacturer won't make the platform 
implementation needed for them, and they can't build it themselves). 

That's a huge loss, and a huge barrier to entry for any new platform 
attempting to become mainstream.

I can understand that from a commercial perspective it makes sense to ignore 
non-mainstream platforms (and even better, to be the gatekeeper charging that 
gets to decide which platforms are supported, and thus being able to charge a 
toll on the chance for going mainstream)

BUT an open standards organization like W3C does not have the luxury of being 
able to exclude non-mainstream platforms. As soon as it does it stops being a 
respectable standards organization. 
-- 
Cheers

Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 09:34:30 UTC