Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:00 PM, John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> wrote:

> Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes:
>
>>> 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 ?
>
> The difference, as has been said I'm sure many times by others before my
> randomly interjecting, is that *only* proprietary, non-interoperable,
> patented technologies fit the shape of the EME container.
>
> To accept the winking suggestion that a free software implementation
> *could* fit into the literal shape of the container -- it would just
> provide really bad and ineffective DRM -- is to accept an immediate,
> known, on-face degradation in the experience of the Web for those not
> using particular pieces of proprietary technology. This is why EME
> should not be a W3C recommendation, according to longstanding W3C
> principles that have nothing to do with requiring the entire Web be
> copyleft.
>
> This is fundamentally different from <object>, which can very well (and
> with a straight face) be satisfied in innumerable actual use cases
> without reliance on patented, non-interoperable, proprietary
> technologies.

Except that soon, if not already, the only thing <object> will
actually be used for is DRM. UA's are rightly doing their best to
deprecate <object>. DRM is or soon will be the only thing stopping
them from doing that.

...Mark
>
> -john
>
> --
> John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
> GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
>
> Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
> <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.

Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:15:00 UTC