Exactly. EME would be no better than royalty encumbered patents from a standards perspective, and we wisely rejected those ten years ago.
-- Duncan Bayne ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype: duncan_bayne I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me. -------- Original message -------- From: Henri Sivonen <[email protected]> Date:17/01/2014 5:20 PM (GMT+10:30) To: Rüdiger Sonderfeld <[email protected]> Cc: Mark Watson <[email protected]>,[email protected] Subject: Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Rüdiger Sonderfeld <[email protected]> wrote: > Which I think are likely because the EME proposal does not make any > requirements on the CDMs license conditions. E.g., Microsoft refusing to > provide the Moonlight developers with a PlayReady CDM; or the price tag for a > Microsoft PlayReady Porting Kit ($30,000 and additional $0,35 per activated > application) alone would scare off developers of many smaller browsers; A per-unit fee isn't just a "smaller browsers" issue. It's more likely than *any* per-unit fee > $0 is prohibitive for *any* product whose user-facing unit price is $0, which is the user-facing unit price of downloadable browsers. -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] https://hsivonen.fi/
