W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2012

Re: CfC: Create Media Task Force

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:40:39 +0000
To: "<robert@ocallahan.org>" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <291D8FA6-BF47-474C-A9F0-52E1CAD0A5B4@netflix.com>

On Apr 13, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>> wrote:
If you mean documented anywhere, I don't think it's a necessary feature of such technologies that how they work is secret, any more than encryption algorithms need to be secret. It does help that encryption algorithms are by their nature hard to understand, where as DRM algorithms probably aren't. You could look at OMA DRM (http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/drm_v2_0.aspx) as a proof point, for example.

RF would be best obviously, but "documented somewhere" is closer to what I had in mind.

I'm not sure what the W3C's role is in achieving those or how we formulate them into the Task Force objectives ?

We do already require interoperable implementations for a specification to progress (where I assume by "interoperable" we mean two UA implementations which, given the same input HTML/CSS/Javascript/Media/user input will produce the same output - pixels on the screen, sounds from the speaker etc.)

Would it be sufficient in this case to be more specific and require that there is at least one interoperable UA implementation from an implementor who is not also a DRM vendor ? This would provide an incentive for the DRM vendors to ensure that one or both of the above do happen in parallel with the specification work.

No, I don't think it would.

That would allow a situation where there's Clearkey or some other weak CDM that can be used to demonstrate interoperability, but in practice Hollywood requires all sites to use some "Microsoft CDM" or "Google CDM" that is only supported by the DRM vendor's browser.

I actually had in mind that the requirement apply for something suitable for commercial services, like Netflix, since the proposal is intended to enable those.

How to formulate it as a formal condition is tricky, though. If we were able to do that, would that be sufficient to address your concern ?

…Mark


[This is a detail, but the second objective could also be achieved if it is clear what API a UA needs to provide so that a CDM which wraps the proprietary DRM product can be created *and* the DRM vendors then do create such CDMs.]

Yes. However, that has the additional issue of distributing those CDM modules everywhere they're needed.

Rob
--
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 15:41:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:48 GMT