On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Jim <jimtay...@openmailbox.org> wrote: > On 2014-05-21 19:24, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Jim <jimtay...@openmailbox.org> wrote: >>> >>> The parts of an EME based media player not specified are implemented in >>> JS/HTML making it an obvious target for a polyfill. Mozilla could have >>> promoted a standard that has a polyfill that will work on EME enabled web >>> browsers and could have refused to implement the EME on Firefox, and this >>> would have made this alternative standard the best option for developers. >>> There was a clear winning strategy here, yet Mozilla chose not to fight, >>> and >>> by supporting the EME have destroyed this strategic option and aided the >>> opponents by covering their weakness. Malice or incompetence? >> >> ... >>> >>> I disagree. There are legal precedents in which the contemporary >>> environment >>> wins cases. This is a weakness for the DRM proponents and why give it up? >> >> ... >>> >>> It is trivially obvious. It is much easier for people to sandbox a >>> separate >>> computing device, they can just disconnect it! >> >> >> "Use Chromecast" is not a position that makes sense for Mozilla to >> adopt as the DRM solution--like "use another browser" isn't. Suppose >> you want to watch a movie on a laptop while away from home. Where's >> your TV and Chromecast then? > > > If you value the security of your laptop and the content owner demands > robust DRM then you will not be able to watch a movie anyway. > > If you do not value the security of your laptop then you can accept the use > of an integrated DRM media player. > > The user has choices. > > A healthy market for devices, including 'chromecast' like devices, could be > options. These devices could be integrated into laptops.
I find it interesting that someone opposed to DRM would propose a capitulation in the "war against general-purpose computing", which integrating your DRM device to laptops would amount to. What Mozilla announced isn't a capitulation in the "war against general-purpose computing", though it would be fair to consider it as a very slippery slope towards it. >> If I didn't look at the From field of the message I'm replying to, I'd >> think I'm replying to Fred Andrews regarding his "IEME" on >> public-restrictedmedia. A position *identical* with yours has been >> discussed before. > > > This was the only counter proposal at the W3C. Glad someone was prepared to > put in an effort, Mozilla didn't. It was a remarkably bad proposal, since it failed to satisfy either the opponents of DRM (the proposal still involved DRM!) or the proponents of EME (the proposal failed to reuse the JS-programmable HTML5 media facilities). > Was Fred a bad person? I don't have reason to believe so. > His last message at > the W3C was a complaint about assignation threats. What Robin said was very inappropriate, but I think it didn't constitute an actual assassination threat. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
