Re: Forwarded Invite to Discussion of EME at the European Parliament, Oct. 15, 11:00-13:00

 Duncan Bayne wrote:

> Absolutely.  But DRM-restricted content won't *be* on the open web, at
> least not as it's defined by the W3C at the moment.
>

Ok, this is where the "not actually in HTML5" bit comes in. The W3C (may)
be the place where EME is specced, and the CDMs are where the proprietary
bits are.

Can we agree that. from the user/browser point of view, EME represents the
window to the non-open bit?

As a user, you would be looking at a browser, navigating the open web, and
it shows you a window to protected content. Like Flash/Silverlight do now,
which is invisible to the typical user once installed.


But CDMs *are* a walled garden technology!  They are closed-source,
> proprietary blobs that can only be implemented by the companies that own
> them, that are incompatible with FOSS licenses, and that support only
> 'blessed' combinations of browser, OS and hardware.
>
> In what way do you see that as being an advantage over, say, an app from
> an app store?


As a user I would be able to use my browser to navigate around all types of
content on the web. If I have to go to an app or my AppleTV  to watch
movies, the web becomes less useful.

I accept that this would not work universally, but I see it as better than
the current situation which is generally Silverlight in an object tag,
which also don't work universally. For example, the controls on an HTML5
video element would be accessible to people using screen readers, I don't
think the Silverlight player controls are accessible. At least that is a
personal choice, you can choose to use software that includes a CDM, or
not. (Or choose whether you want access to mainstream movies, or not.)

-Alastair