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: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:50:41 +0000
To: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
CC: "Mays, David" <David_Mays@Comcast.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <899FE6AB-432C-44DF-84F2-6A771E8D71D1@netflix.com>

On Jan 24, 2013, at 2:40 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:

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.

You make it sound like the "failure of the W3C" was willfull. It's a complex world out there and W3C is not omnipotently able to change the realities of patent systems or the existence of certain patents.

The Encrypted Media Extensions draft references ISO Common Encryption - and a similar approach is possible for WebM. This avoids the need to provide different files for different CDMs - all CDMs should be able to consume the same files.

This is an improvement on the current situation. It means that those who choose to use CDMs are not locked in to a particular provider, which provides space for new CDMs to emerge i.e. it removes at least one major barrier to the introduction of CDMs that address some of the concerns raised related to IPR, licensing etc. That's not to say there aren't other barriers, but as with video the need to make a new copy of a content library would have been a major one.

ůMark
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:51:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:51:11 GMT