On 26/04/2013 23:38, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 26/Apr/2013 02:53:58 +0200 Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Personally, I don't have a firm position on these issues, but I couldn't let this pass by.
I've thought about this a bit and looked at some on-line discussions.
In as far as this might be an IETF->W3C liaison issue (and it probably should be),
I would suggest that three points could be made:
1. DRM is a fact of life, and it is therefore better that there should
be a well-formulated standard than a free-for-all. A free-for-all is a
guaranteed route to non-interoperability.
2. DRM should be off by default. That's probably a given (if a content
provider doesn't use EME there will be no DRM) but it needs to be specified.
3. EME should have a very low or zero cost of entry for a content provider.
Quoting from a commenter on The Register:
"The DRM mechanism must allow *individuals* (or small groups) a
low-cost low-hassle way to use it. That's because the way to destroy
the various evil DRM empires is not to steal content - it's to allow
creators to manage the sale of their own creations without needing a
big bad bloodsucker to "help" them. That means a DRM system that anybody
can use to protect their own stuff."
Brian