Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group

Exactly. EME would be no better than royalty encumbered patents from a standards perspective, and we wisely rejected those ten years ago. 

--
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.

-------- Original message --------
From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> 
Date:17/01/2014  5:20 PM  (GMT+10:30) 
To: Rüdiger Sonderfeld <ruediger@c-plusplus.de> 
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>,public-restrictedmedia@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this  community group 

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Rüdiger Sonderfeld
<ruediger@c-plusplus.de> wrote:
> Which I think are likely because the EME proposal does not make any
> requirements on the CDMs license conditions.  E.g., Microsoft refusing to
> provide the Moonlight developers with a PlayReady CDM; or the price tag for a
> Microsoft PlayReady Porting Kit ($30,000 and additional $0,35 per activated
> application) alone would scare off developers of many smaller browsers;

A per-unit fee isn't just a "smaller browsers" issue. It's more likely
than *any* per-unit fee > $0 is prohibitive for *any* product whose
user-facing unit price is $0, which is the user-facing unit price of
downloadable browsers.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/