Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> 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.

Netflix at least  is working with PlayReady on Windows 8.1 and
WideVine on ChromeOS. It's the same client code, same media files and
same server code too, with the exception of small DRM-specific
back-end software libraries.

>
> 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.

Sure, but that's not something that's achievable given the licensing terms.

>
> That content is *still* completely broken w.r.t. the open web.

What I'm saying is just that there's no difference in this respect
between EME and <object>. The term 'open web' isn't well-enough
defined for us to make much progress with it. Is <object> part of the
'open web' according to your definition ?

...Mark
>
> 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 00:40:30 UTC