- From: <piranna@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 10:38:35 +0200
- To: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 08:39:03 UTC
Invisible watermark was proposed some time ago, but nobody showed interest. El 06/10/2013 10:14, "Emmanuel Revah" <stsil@manurevah.com> escribió: > On 2013/10/06 02:27, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > >> An interesting rebuttal to EFF's arguments, complete with a response from >> EFF. >> >> Jeff >> >> Dear EFF: please don't pick the wrong fight >> http://chris.improbable.org/**2013/10/4/dear-eff/<http://chris.improbable.org/2013/10/4/dear-eff/> >> Chris Adams >> > > > > In short: We need EME as a W3C standard because it's better than Flash and > Silverlight (and those products are obsolete regardless of EME). To me it's > sad that this is an actual argument. > > > The Watermarking idea is an interesting one, but I doubt that any content > publisher that uses DRM will be interested in hearing about it once EME is > in place. > > > > -- > Emmanuel Revah > http://manurevah.com > > >
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 08:39:03 UTC