- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:05:08 -0800
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> There are many such contracts and they are confidential, so unfortunately > I can't post them. I understand your position - caught in the middle - but you're asking us as a group to propose technical solutions to requirements that we are prohibited from reading. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? Likewise, you're asking the W3C to compromise their Open Web principles on behalf of those same secret requirements. A bit of transparency here would be nice. Can we at least get a written summary of requirements from the stakeholders? I.e. not Netflix, Apple etc. but the people whose licensing terms are forcing this issue? > Realistically, I don't think you will get studio requirements posted > publicly, but that's not a question for me. Okay, for whom *is* it a question then? It angers me that the W3C might be tasked with satisfying secret requirements, especially to the detriment of Open Web principles. > So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that > meet studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is provide a > clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element. What > we're not trying to do is standardize a solution to the studio > requirements. That would be rather ambitious, I feel. What we (meaning opponents of EME) are trying to do is propose alternative technical solutions that would satisfy both the Open Web principles, *and* the requirements of the content owners. As a first step, I'm suggesting that we hear what those latter requirements are from the horse's mouth. -- Duncan Bayne ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype: duncan_bayne I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 01:05:31 UTC