W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > March 2013

Re: On Encrypted Media Extensions

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:24:31 -0700
Message-ID: <-7551708501324850001@unknownmsgid>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Alex M (Coyo)" <coyo@darkdna.net>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 25, 2013, at 5:20 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Alex M (Coyo) <coyo@darkdna.net> wrote:
>> Are the Encrypted Media Extensions supposed to be like HDCP for HTML5?
>
> No. EME is not a DRM scheme in itself. It's an API for mediating
> message flows between client-side video/audio DRM components and DRM
> key servers in a scenario where a browser delegates some functions of
> the HTML5 media stack to proprietary DRM component called CDM.
>
> At this time, Google has shipped Chrome OS with a Widevine CDM
> (https://plus.google.com/100132233764003563318/posts/6QW8TLtV6q3).
> Microsoft is listing EME as a standard effort that PlayReady supports
> on its PlayReady site
> (https://www.microsoft.com/playready/standards/), which strongly
> suggests that there will be a PlayReady-based EME CDM, too. There may
> end up being other CDMs, but at this time I am not aware of
> proprietors of other DRM schemes publishing indications upcoming EME
> integration.
>
>> HDCP was an excellent success, wasn't it?
>>
>> I hear the master key was not only cracked, but leaked globally.
>
> What's your point? As long as there is a reason to even suspect that a
> court might deem HDCP to be an "effective technical protection
> measure", the hands of law-abiding hardware vendors are tied and they
> need to get permission to build functionality around HDCP. As far as I
> can tell, HDCP continues to be a success for the purpose of Hollywood
> having control over the features present in mass-market consumer
> electronics.
>
>> Are the EMEs supposed to be more like the Broadcast flag system?
>
> No. (Pay no attention to the Clear Key scheme. It's for debugging and
> for meeting procedural requirements of the W3C Process. Don't expect
> it to be used for big-studio movies.)
>
>> Who is going to regulate the EMEs?
>
> EME isn't a DRM scheme in itself, so EME doesn't need to be regulated.
> As for the CDMs, I would expect the current oversight structure to
> persist: The proprietor of a given DRM scheme certifies to content
> owners that products embodying an implementation of the DRM scheme
> comply with Compliance Rules and Robustness Rules for the DRM scheme
> and revokes the keys for products found to be in violation of the
> rules. You can find the Compliance Rules and the Robustness Rules for
> PlayReady at https://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/
> .
>
>> How is this going to encourage a free and
>> open web?
>
> Unclear.
>
>> How does this further the mission of the W3C?
>
> Unclear.

On those last two points, the W3C cannot make any difference to
whether content owners require the use of DRM on their content. The
W3C can make a difference to whether the W3C web platform is used or
not to deliver that content. If no support is provided for DRM then
premium video services will migrate to native apps. Many of us believe
that the web will be a poorer place for that.

...Mark
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 15:25:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:58 UTC