Is Google therefore "leveraged by proxy" because they don't license the content but they do want to make it available, so they effectively are bound by the same rules? Do you reject my premise that in this instance, Google's direct content licensing is immaterial? Or is there a third explanation? a comment quoted from the post. Does Google have a dog in this fight?Peter KastingMar 19, 2013
What about Google, who is arguably "pushing for DRM" in the sense of supporting the HTML media EME; but who in this context are basically just creating a "player" (Chrome) -- at least in the sense in which Chrome (software) or Chrome OS (hardware) implements the decryption modules. Yes, I am aware that one could drag in the larger company context about the Google Play Store or whatever, but I really don't think that's at issue here: I would say that e.g. Netflix is in the role you describe (licensing content and creating a software player) and Google is in some sense a proxy who perceives content as only being available through "leveraged" companies, and is trying to act on the user's behalf to make those companies' content available.