W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:58:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD=MwMKs2j2GmUCuvhWTACOntJG==q761HPsvZZ6dZ1mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Jet Villegas W3C <w3c@junglecode.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> Jet,
>
> It is difficult to assess the likelihood of such fallback scenarios. They
> are certainly possible, so it is in the hands of the service provider to
> make that decision.

However, we can look at history to see how common the kind of fallback
you describe is.  As far as I can tell, it's rare to nonexistent.  The
distribution contracts usually require the use of particular
technologies, so deferring to "whatever the browser has built-in" will
likely never fly, and in nearly every case I can recall, there is no
"low-quality, unencrypted" version made available by the distributor.

It seems to be wishful thinking to assume the video distributors will
suddenly change their mind on these matters and start offering up
video in the ways you describe.

> From the perspective of commercial video service providers, the
> Flash/Silverlight approach is significantly worse than the EME/CDM approach.
> It is worse because the use of any specific CP system requires every UA
> vendor to independently build a distinct solution and for every use of that
> system to deploy UA specific API at the client application layer. That would
> not be the case with EME/CDM. So, speaking for Cox, EME/CDM is a huge
> improvement over the status quo.

I don't understand how using Flash or Silverlight to run your DRM
requires more work for the browser than anything else.  Can you
elaborate?

It looks like you're avoiding the concern that has been repeatedly
brought up, which is that individual DRM providers have a long history
of only providing their stuff on the most profitable subset of
platform (often just one or two versions of Windows, and perhaps the
current Mac version), which means that the UAs are still stuck without
the ability to play any video at all.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 18:59:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2013 18:59:03 GMT