On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Jim <[email protected]> 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 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. -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
