- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:10:38 -0700
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> So, one of the things we are trying to do with EME is create a model > where service providers support multiple DRMs. So you are not required to buy > OperaVision and be restricted to only the platforms that supports, but > you can use WideVine or PlayReady or ... instead and this hopefully gives you > more platforms on which you can access the content. I agree wholeheartedly that EME is a better implementation of media DRM than any I've ever seen. The possibility - and I fear it's an outside possibility - of supporting multiple CDMs is a good one from the consumers point of view. But that doesn't make the content any more 'open web', does it? Having a choice between a couple of providers might be better than just having one. It *still* doesn't mean that anyone with an Internet connection can access the content should they choose to spend the time and effort. That content is *still* completely broken w.r.t. the open web. Therefore, it shouldn't fall under the purview of the W3C. -- 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 Wednesday, 23 October 2013 00:11:06 UTC