- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:27:38 -0700
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Once EME is an open standard that anyone can implement, everyone that > actually can, will (highly probable). There will also be demand to > protect other forms of content, like images, texts and anything really, > why shouldn't there be ? Maybe I'd like to display HD images on my > photo gallery but need the guarantee that it is impossible to copy. I > cannot see why it would be okay for videos and not still images, text > and other forms of digital content. Not just probable - people have already been asking for it. > This is a never ending debate, unless we're honest that proponents care > more about corporate business needs than keeping the Web open. Instead > many claim that the W3C has no clear guidelines. I never claimed that, myself - the guidelines are clear, just as it's clear that they're being pushed under the bus in order to accommodate DRM. > The most honest EME proponent must weigh the benefits of bringing big > media to the web and the security/privacy/openness of the user and the > web. In the end, to be pro EME is to believe that it is more important, > even if by a hair, than keeping the W3C's standards truly open (and > accessible, trustworthy, etc etc). Very nice summary. > Is it possible to create a DRM system that does not require users to run > vendor software on their systems ? > > If that were the current proposition for EME, I'd have a hard time > arguing against it on the W3C mailing list. Instead the debate is > constantly shifted to "Yes, but what can we do to satisfy their business > needs ?". It's the crisis of representation, again. -- Duncan Bayne ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype: duncan_bayne I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 20:28:00 UTC