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

Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:06:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dOnT7nQ8OhnKbaTZ6GM3wVUe7OO9RQMXVJcT3E0X1-Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> This does not solve the problems brought up last time against adding
> DRM to <video>.  In particular, a browser like Mozilla is *legally
> prevented* from actually implementing DRM, because they have to reveal
> all their code, including the decryption code that contains the
> secrets you use to decrypt.


does that mean that mozilla must publish the code for every OS it runs on?
does FF not employ APIs implemented by the OS for which it has no control
or even knowledge of implementation details?

i don't see any difference in using an abstract DRM or CP API that maps to
a concrete, undisclosed OS implementation and any other uses of OS APIs by
a browser
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 23:07:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:45 GMT