- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 10:39:22 -0400
- To: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- CC: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On 10/6/2013 5:10 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > Jeff Jaffe: >> 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/ >> Chris Adams > The author of that text does not understand what he is writing about and > it is noteworthy that you consider this to be a rebuttal to EFF's arguments. Whether or not you agree with the writer or respect the writer, factually it is a rebuttal, that is to say a contrary contention. > > Chris Adams wrote: > > "there is no meaningful distinction between what EME proposes and what > is already the case with a browser plugin. If Firefox can play Flash or > Silverlight content, it can decrypted video using a CDM which is either > included in the host operating system, bundled under an agreement > similar to Chrome's Flash plugin or installed by the user." > > On the three alternatives: > > - "included in the host operating system": > > *No* relevant CDM will be included in *any* user modifiable / Open > Source operating system. > > - "bundled under an agreement similar to Chrome's Flash plugin": > > Chrome is closed source. And the Chrome OS containing EME and CDMs is as > locked as can be. That is *worse* than a Flash plugin. > > - "installed by the user" > > There will be *no* relevant CDM which can be installed and used on *any* > user modifiable / Open Source operating system. > > Cheers, > Andreas
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 14:39:30 UTC