W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Video copy protection

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:32:03 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1002081332y23a5e698q74e091128dc32337@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Feldgendler <alexeyf@opera.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Alexey Feldgendler <alexeyf@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:41:37 +0100, Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I think HTML5 should let content publishers decide whether UA is allowed
>> to let user download video or not.
>
> Leaving aside whether or not the standard should say something like this, a
> web standard is not a contract or a legal agreement of any sort (it's those
> kind of things that ensure that manufacturers of BluRay players implement
> the DRM “correctly”).
>
> You could equally have HTML5 demand that web browsers do not block ads
> (again, not discussing now whether it's right or wrong). What you would have
> then is a bunch of strictly speaking non-compliant implementations.
> Likewise, sooner or later a web browser will offer its users the ability to
> save those “unsaveable” video clips, violating the standard but probably
> inspiring other browser vendors to copy the feature. (Compare: ad blocking,
> popup blocking, circumvention of right-click hijacking by scripts, UA string
> spoofing are all technically deviations from standardized behavior, but
> nevertheless commonplace in modern web browsers.)
>
> What I'm getting at is that it makes no sense for the spec to require
> DRM-like behavior because this requirement won't be complied with in
> practice.

A precedence here is the recent font format discussions. Some parties
here wanted DRM technologies built in to the platform, whereas other
parties (mozilla and opera included) were pushing hard against any
technologies that contained DRM.

It's currently looking like a non-DRM based technology, WOFF, is the
one that will be the agreed on. WOFF instead allows ownership
information to be included in the font files so that if a copyright
breach happens, you can see this after the fact.

I would advice taking the same route with video. Allow *informative*
licensing information to be included in the video so that owners can
be traced or so that someone can automatically spider the web looking
for copyrighted content that has gone astray.

Of course, in order for this to work we need to all agree on a video
format, something that is currently looking unlikely to happen soon.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 21:32:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT