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: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
Date: 24 Jan 2013 11:40:39 +0100
Message-ID: <51010FA7.9080700@ping.de>
To: "Mays, David" <David_Mays@Comcast.com>
Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Mays, David:
> 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.

"it's easy to imagine" indicates that this is another red herring.

But we are in agreement that your suggested medical use case is not one
for which DRM is a requirement.

And we probably also agree that interoperability is a requirement for
such a use case. Everybody who has to provide both MP4 and WebM video
files for web video (due to a failure of the W3C to specify a standard
which is not patent encumbered) is aware of that kind of problem. Black
boxes ("Content Decryption Module (CDM)") prevent easy interoperability.

Therefore the use case you mentioned supports my opposition to the
Encrypted Media Extensions specification.

In other words: This whole discussion is not about encrypted video but
about DRM.

Anyway: The rtcweb / WebRTC community is already specifying protocols
for such purposes. See for example:

Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for
the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5764

Cheers,
Andreas
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 10:48:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 10:48:30 GMT