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: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 23:54:54 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Jet Villegas W3C" <w3c@junglecode.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <438CCE43DFE22A4CBDBD3FDF65D8B20F059F507F@exmb106.corp.netflix.com>

From: Sam Ruby [rubys@intertwingly.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:55 PM
To: Glenn Adams
Cc: Henri Sivonen; L. David Baron; Jet Villegas W3C; public-html-admin@w3.org; Robert O'Callahan; Tab Atkins, Jr.
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a  First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

On 02/02/2013 05:21 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>     On 02/02/2013 08:11 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>         On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi
>         <mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi>
>         <mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi <mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi>>> wrote:
>              On Feb 1, 2013 10:26 PM, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com
>         <mailto:glenn@skynav.com>
>              <mailto:glenn@skynav.com <mailto:glenn@skynav.com>>> wrote:
>               > Since I represent a commercial video provider here, I
>         can speak
>              authoritatively that they are interested in providing
>         services to
>              the widest array of users in the widest array of platforms,
>         etc.
>              Yet, in practice, people can observe e.g. Voddler saying
>         that their
>              licensors (major studios) won't let them target desktop
>         Linux even
>              though Linux has Flash Player available and they use Flash
>         Player
>              for DRM on Windows and Mac.
>         On the other hand, I was just speaking with a VP of one of the
>         six major
>         studios yesterday, who assured me that they wished to ensure their
>         content was interoperable on Android and other Linux platforms.
>     But no announced, concrete plans?
> No, but this studio (and others) are active in the DECE/Ultraviolet (UV)
> work, and he expressed hope that support for a UV CDM would be developed
> and supported on Android/Linux as well as other OS platforms.

I see that statement as being one quite different than your previous

There is no question that Android is based on Linux.  But as Ubuntu is a
quite popular Linux Distribution, when hearing "Android and other Linux
platforms", I would conclude that it would be highly likely that Ubuntu
would be concluded.  Which would be a significant change.  My experience
with Dish Anywhere and Netflix is that both work on Android but neither
work on Ubuntu (or RedHat or Suse or...).

When I hear "Android/Linux as well as other OS platforms", I hear a
statement that does not address Henri's point.  Many DRM solutions today
work on "Android/Linux as well as other OS platforms"... what Henri was
commenting on was licensors preventing deployment on desktop Linux
operating systems.

MW> Regarding "licensors preventing deployment on desktop Linux operating systems", as I've argued before, one could view the "licensors" in this statement as being *either* of the content licensors *or* the Open Source software licensors. There is no technical reason why desktop Linux distros couldn't ship with a user-unmodifiable CDM component - it's the choice of the software licensors that prevents this.

I don't believe we should cast the choices of either group as better or more favored than the other. Indeed both groups are entitled to make such choices and there are good reasons on both sides for them to do so.

It has been argued here that W3C should attempt to exclude a class of content authors from publishing on the web: speaking personally, this feels to me like putting up a big "you are not welcome here" sign to anyone who includes DRM requirements in their content licenses. This is a lot of people. It's hard to say "this is for everyone" if such an exclusion were adopted.

On the other hand, progressing this work does not reduce at all the likelihood that a way could be found to bring this content to Linux and other FOSS environments. On the contrary, it may even increase it.


> My conclusion is that there is fairly widespread interest in the studios
> in having EME move forward.

That is clear.  It is also clear that there is widespread objections.
The chairs are actively working with W3C Management to determine how
best to proceed.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2013 23:55:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:32 UTC