On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Mark Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > Again, it doesn't seem to me that the situation is qualitatively different > as between <object> and EME. It's been claimed that the fact the EME is > targeted at DRM wheras <object> has wider scope is what makes it > qualitatively different, but I don't think that really holds water.
It seems that people are more okay with generic things that can also do things that they disapprove of than with special-purpose things that only do things that they disapprove of. Consider the Sony Betamax case. The VCR was considered to be legitimate, because it had substantial non-infringing uses. At the time <object> was created, it had substantial non-DRM uses. EME, on the other hand, doesn't have substantial non-DRM uses. Personally, I think arguing on a level of principle that <object> is OK but EME is not is not a particularly good line of argument, since we're headed very quickly to a situation where <object> has no substantial non-DRM uses left in practice. However, as far as practical matters go, what makes <object> less exclusionary right now is the broader platform and cross-browser availability of DRM components that integrate with <object>. Consider Microsoft PlayReady on desktop for example. A version that integrates with <object> is available for Windows from Windows XP all the way up and including Windows 8.1 and also for Mac, but a version that suitable for EME is only available bundled with Windows 8.1. -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] http://hsivonen.fi/
