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

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

From: John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:04:27 -0500 (EST)
To: "Mays, David" <David_Mays@Comcast.com>
cc: "Kotay, Sree" <Sree_Kotay@cable.comcast.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1301221659270.12487@yoshi>
I fully agree that there are reasons two or more parties parties would 
want to protect whatever they are transmitting between each other from a 
third party (or fourth, not sure what the correct terminology is if it is 
more than two parties in the first place).

The problem is that this proposal is not about that, it is largely about 
DRM and cannot be complete in an interoperable way.  There are other 
technologies for securing communication between multiple parties.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Mays, David wrote:

> Encrypted media delivery has uses other than DRM.
>
> One obvious one I can think of is for secure private video communications. Think of a doctor transmitting a video diagnosis to a patient, and it's easy to imagine a case for encrypted video that has nothing to do with DRM.
>
> An argument that its only purpose is to support DRM is uncreative at best, disingenuous at worst.
>
> Ian is right; don't blow off your hand to deal with a thorn in your finger.
>
> Dave
>
> (This is my personal opinion, not that of my employer.)
>
>
> "John C. Vernaleo" <john@netpurgatory.com> wrote:
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 22:04:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2013 22:04:50 GMT