Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Milan Zamazal <pdm@zamazal.org> wrote:

> >>>>> "c" == cobaco  <cobaco@freemen.be> writes:
>
>     c> On 2013-10-23 06:11 Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>
>     >> There doesn't seem to be a practical way to get to this result,
>     >> as is painfully obvious. Focusing on working on EME to constrain
>     >> CDMs and other alternatives do seem realistic.  Can the
>     >> principled camp in these discussions fall back to practical
>     >> solutions?
>
>     c> in other words 'are we willing to give up our principals for
>     c> practical gain', and do so in a situation where the 'gain' is
>     c> questionable at best?
>
> I agree that a standard excluding some users by definition from
> accessing Web content is a bad standard.  However we can end up with a
> bad standard or with an even worse standard.
>
> I think the choice of explicitly limiting EME to video content would be
> less damaging and easier to handle in future than making EME a general
> purpose DRM framework.  Making EME applicable only to video content
> might be a realistic step.
>


EME *is* explicitly restricted to audio/video content. It defines
extensions to the HTMLMediaElement. Noone is proposing that it be extended.

The issue with other content types is that it is feared by some that the
"principle" established by EME will be used to motivate *new* proposals
which apply DRM to other content types. But there are no such proposals
now. I fully expect we can avoid that since no browsers have shown any
interest in implementing such additional controls. We can also work on ways
to avoid EME establishing such a "principle" that extends to other content
types, for example by being very specific about the conditions which
motivated EME.

...Mark