w3ctag/eme

TAG opinion on EME

eme's Issues

Limiting the lifetime of content is a use case for DRM on the web.

'Content with a limited lifetime is contrary to the best interests of consumers of that content.'

A use of DRM is to restrict the number of times content can be viewed. Even if 'platform independence' were possible then it would still conflict with this use of DRM, so these points do not support 'platform independence' for DRM.

DRM is for restricting use of information not restricted access to information

The introduction discusses restricting access to information, and gives some examples, but concludes that this will 'inform the debate about the inclusion of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) in HTML'. The purpose of EME DRM is to restrict use of information and not to restrict access to information so this only confuses the 'debate'.

The introduction and discussion should focus on technology that restricts the use of information by the authorized recipient if it wants to be relevant to DRM.

To 'share information with restricted groups of people' does not demand restricting what they can do with the information.

'to protect our privacy, it should be possible to share information that no one can see aside from the intended recipients' also does not demand restricting what they can do with the information.

'And because of this need for privacy, the web needs to also be secure and trustworthy.' again this does not demand restricting what the authorized recipient can do with the information.

Over the web's 25 years there have been several technologies and architectures which have had the effect of restricting access for some people to portions of the web.

Again, you confuse 'restricting access for some people to portions of the web' with restricting what the authorized recipient can do with the information.

Perhaps you mean:
'Over the web's 25 years there have been several technologies and architectures which have had the effect of restricting how the authorized recipient of information accessed over the web can use the information.'

This document explores how these work and the effect they had on the web, with the ultimate goal of aiming to inform the debate about the inclusion of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) in HTML.

'how these work and the effect they had on the web' is not even relevant to DRM so it is not possible that it can ' inform the debate about the inclusion of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) in HTML.'

Accessibility

I don't think the biggest issue is about blocking compositing, because it seems that platforms can do this, and if they can't, the relevant content can usually be rendered "side by side" with no real problems.

On the other hand, the ability to use third-party content which is protected by a different system is important. This is really just a refinement of the whole issue of content being available on different platforms, but where a user requires e.g. sign-language interpretation for video (which costs money to produce, and may not be provided except under commercial terms - the same as content which is being protected), the inability to use CDMs for both kinds of content becomes an accessibility issue, IMHO.