- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:30:40 +0000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12, 2012, at 11:38 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, John Foliot wrote: >> Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >>> since that I assume any CDM so documented would fail the Hollywood >>> placebo test. >> >> I appreciate that there are philosophical differences around this issue, >> but I would hope that philosophy be discussed in another forum, and that >> we focus on technical discussions. "Hollywood", as a legitimate content >> creator on and for the web, has issues around protecting their financial >> base, and the W3C has a legitimate need to hear out and address their >> concerns to the best of its technical ability to do so. > > Nobody has proposed a mechanism that would actually prevent any kind of > copyright violation, so your argument doesn't seem relevant here. Nobody supposes that 'preventing' copyright violations in any absolute sense is possible: someone can always point a camera at a TV screen. Any content protection system can be broken with sufficient effort, expertise and expense. The proposal enables use of existing technologies, that make access to higher value representations of the content (encoded or digital uncompressed frames) difficult, to be integrated with the video tag in a common and discoverable way (and without ceding application functions like authorization to those technologies). John's comment is relevant to what is actually proposed. ...Mark > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 20:31:10 UTC