RE: Proposal: Internet Encrypted Media Extensions

> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:23:57 +0100
> From: a.kuckartz@ping.de
..
> > 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.

Wrong.  It is an alternative.  The device does not need to implement the EME API! 
 
> "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.

Wrong, it is a solution to the problem of proposing an arguably better solution than the EME for the user, and a solution for the problem of keeping DRM interfaces out of the open web standards, and it might have other advantages that can be framed in a problem-solving manner.

It also addresses the problem of allowing users on FOSS stacks and Open Hardware to conveniently redirect playing of DRM media to DRM capable devices, while keeping as much of the application as possible (the web component) on their FOSS stack.

It does not solve the problem of keeping DRM off the Internet, but I do not believe this is a reason to not try and solve some of the other very important problems.

> "this proposal promotes the use of DRM content"
> 
> Indeed. And for that reason (and other implied reasons) I object to that
> proposal.

Fair enough.  I object to promoting DRM in general too.

The proposal keeps the DRM APIs out of the open web while meeting the use case which makes it a viable path and a better solution than the EME.

> 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.

The security and privacy threat from DRM is the loss of control over our general purpose computers.

Would you like the proposal to also note that people in control of their computer may well be less of a security and privacy risk as a recipient of data shared with them than people using a computer that they do not control?     Not sure this really needs to be spelled out.

cheers
Fred