On 2014-05-27 08:34, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jim <jimtay...@openmailbox.org> wrote:
What are Mozilla going to do when some CDM innovations allows HTTP
requests
to be passed to the CDM and received and presented in the web browser?
This
will effectively add DRM to any web content. The EME solution requires
JS to
complete the player and this along with the DOM gives all the
flexibility to
implement this. Add a JS engine to the CDM and there goes even more of
the
web. Add HTML rendering support to the CDM and it's game over, and
Mozilla
are making it happen.
Statements like this makes it quite clear that you aren't trying to
have a constructive conversation. By now you should know that EME is
not mozilla's design, nor are we "making it happen".
Great, ignore all the technical challenges, accuse your opposition of
not engaging in a 'constructive conversation', and deny the facts.
The facts are:
* Mozilla is a paying member of the W3C publishing the EME
specification.
* Mozilla has a representative on the working group developing the EME.
* Mozilla has a representative on the high level W3C Technical
Architecture Group who considered the EME.
* Mozilla have formally supported EME all the way in formal W3C
decisions.
* Mozilla have made no objections with any standing to the EME at the
W3C.
* Mozilla did not speak out when the W3C started joking about
assassinating EME dissenters.
* The W3C is controlled by MIT. Only MIT members can be appointed as the
W3C directors and the W3C director has the final say. The current W3C
director's statements are very supportive of the EME and DRM, yet he
claims to champion the web-web-want[sic].
* Mozilla has recently appointed a new director with close ties to MIT
who also claims to be supportive of the open web.
* Mozilla have pre-announced their implementation of the EME.
* Mozilla have partnered with Adobe to promote Adobe's EME-CDM.
* The Adobe's-CDM-in-Mozilla's-sandbox solution has not been defended as
robust, and is not supported by any content owners or distributors.
There is good reason to believe it will not be widely accepted by
content owners.
* Mozilla have refused to address questions about what they will do if
their sandbox/CDM is not widely accepted? It's a slippery slope and
Mozilla have not drawn a line and we see where this is going.
If you want to suggest changes to EME, please make concrete proposals.
We definitely share your goal of not wanting DRM to spread to other
parts of the web stack, so any proposals towards that goal will
definitely be listened to. Whining will, however, not be.
* Mozilla have refused to engage in constructive discussion of EME
alternatives!
Jim
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
