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

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:01:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAucsQiDpAeSWYAaEJx7-dtFgMdMZLFux-J9JqKMphucCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: john@netpurgatory.com, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > You over-generalize when you
>> > imply that one such restrictive license effectively prohibits a
>> > meaningful
>> > use of a mechanism with a non-restrictive policy.
>>
>> What would be a meaningful use of the proposed mechanism with a
>> non-restrictive policy? (HTML5 video already supports cases where the
>> user is not treated as an adversary.)
>
> adversary? customers aren't usually viewed as adversaries... let's tone done
> the hyperbole please

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@cablelabs.com> wrote:
> I must be missing something here. I don't understand the use of
> inflammatory language (treating a user as an adversary) to describe a
> common commercial relationship.

As Kornel pointed out,  I used the word "adversary" in the technical
sense as part of cryptography terminology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversary_%28cryptography%29

I was inspired to use this word, because the proposal under discussion
has this sentence:
"Everything from user-generated content to be shared with family (user
is not an adversary) to online radio to feature-length movies."
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#faq-use-cases

My understanding of the quoted sentence (given background information
about DRM) is that it means to imply that in the cases of online radio
and feature-length movies, the user is an adversary.

The first part of the sentence doesn't make sense to me, because the
proposal isn't needed to support cases where the user is not an
adversary, because HTML <video> already supports such cases.

Treating the user as an adversary is the reason for existence for DRM.
(The other purpose DRM can serve is adding competitive barriers
between technology providers.) The point of DRM is to "protect" the
unscrambled content from the user--i.e. the user is the adversary. If
some content proprietors didn't view end customers as adversaries, DRM
wouldn't exist. (If you are OK with revealing the unscrambled content
to the user and only want to hide it from third parties, you just use
https.)

If you take issue with the notion of treating the user as an
adversary, it would be logical for you to oppose to a DRM proposal.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 07:02:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:46 GMT