- From: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:25:31 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013-10-24 15:42 Mark Watson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Milan Zamazal <pdm@zamazal.org> wrote: > > 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. really? in earlier discussions on list it was said by you drm-proponents that music and video are different and that only video needed DRM protection yet you've just expanded the scope above from video-only to audio and video, that's en entire other class of content added to the walled garden is it really a wonder that there is no trust that it won't creep even further -- Cheers
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 09:25:55 UTC