- From: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 29 Jan 2014 14:23:57 +0100
- To: "Fred Andrews" <fredandw@live.com>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Fred Andrews: > An initial draft of a proposal to compete with the EME ABI and that is > arguable better for the user, while still meeting the use case of > users needing to view protect media content, and keeping DRM out of > the web, has been published: > > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Internet_Encrypted_Media_Extensions "This proposal extends the W3C Encrypted Media Extension (EME)" So it is not an alternative to EME but based on it. "This proposal will allow web browsers built on FOSS stacks, that do not support the playing of protected content, to redirect the playing of protected content to alternative devices." In other words: using FOSS would be inconvenient to users. That is no solution as far as I am concerned. And I wonder what the implications would be regarding mobile devices. The proposal is incompatible with Open Hardware. "this proposal promotes the use of DRM content" Indeed. And for that reason (and other implied reasons) I object to that proposal. *** BTW: regarding these formulations: "Some users ... are not too concerned about the security and privacy implications of their computer being controlled by publishers. Some users need security and privacy ..." At issue are not only the security and privacy demands of the users but of all people they are communicating with. Cheers, Andreas
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 13:24:33 UTC