- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:50:55 -0800
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org List" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Jan 13, 2014, at 12:45 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> It is not clear to me why there is a significant distinction (in respect of >> the other issues in this thread) between "native browser plugin" and >> "CDM". > > Because the CDM requires EME to operate. Thus, in order to support a > CDM, the W3C will have to allow into the standard a specification that > has one purpose only: to interoperate with closed-source, proprietary > binaries that (as has been pointed *many* times on this list by myself > and others) are entirely inimical to the open web. > > To be clear though, I agree that all of the issues you've raised are > problematic from the perspective of the end user. The issue that I and > others have, though, is that the EME + CDM solution harms the Open Web. > We have presented *numerous* alternatives, and you and others have > knocked them all back as being unacceptable to content owners. Might be good to get a summary of the ‘story so far’ started, maybe on a wiki? It might help us stop going around and around, and make progress? > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 13 January 2014 20:51:24 UTC