- From: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 21:30:12 +0100
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2014-01-11 07:24 Mark Watson wrote: > On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote: > > Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:32 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote: > >>> On 2014-01-10 07:11 Mark Watson wrote: > >>>> FWIW, EME *can* be fully implemented under a copyleft open source > >>>> license on platforms that expose the necessary capabilities. That > >>>> is presently only Windows, but nontheless. > >>> we've been over this... > >>> > >>> EME is only half the system, > >>> the other half is an unspecified black box by design > >>> > >>> so, no, it can not be fully implemented, half the implementation > >>> depends on the blessing/help from the CDM-manufacturer, which > >>> automatically means anything non-mainstream can forget about it > >> Please re-read what I said more carefully. When the CDM component is > >> included in the platform and available through public APIs, then a > >> complete working implementation of client-side content protection > >> using EME can be supported in a FOSS browser. I believe this is the > >> case (or soon will be) for Windows. > > Unless you consider “Microsoft Windows” to be “non-mainstream”, this is > > not a counterexample to what cobaco wrote. > > > > W3C must not develop recommendations that will (if they're widely > > adopted by the “content industry”) have the effect of making it > > impossible to access a significant part of culture (that which is > > distributed by the “content industry”) using non-mainstream operating > > systems (including non-mainstream versions of Free Software operating > > systems)! > If anything has this effect, it's certainly not W3C recommendations, > as we have extensively discussed. current W3C recommendations haven't had that effect, EME+CDM with black box CDM parts *will* it goes as follows: - only half the spec part is specified, the other part is a black box - to get to play, you need both parts, which means you'll need to convince the black box manufacturers to support your setup - simple economics means that inevitably everyone on a non-mainstream platform will be left out in the cold for the black box part, and it being a black box they won't be able to help themselves out A spec where half the spec is a black box explicitly tilts the playing field. Standards are supposed to level the playing field, not tilt it. A standards organization that approves 'standards' that tilt the playing field, is a standards organization that has lost its credibility . W3C hasn't fallen yet, but the content industry is definitely trying to push it of the cliff. -- Cheers
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 20:30:37 UTC