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

Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:17:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCGqW7h35rr0VS=8fpM4DqWkRsO4m5yM+cNe3tebWnNUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Christian Kaiser <kaiserc@google.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I cannot speak to any contractual obligations.
>> > However, I would bet that for *some* applications the protection that
>> > ClearKey affords can be satisfactory.
>> > I would also bet that a mechanism that is implemented in hundreds of
>> > millions of browser installations is attractive for content owners.
>> > Another bet: given lowered barriers to entry, we will see additional
>> > options
>> > beyond Clear Key and the commercial CDMs we know today.
>> > Unfortunately, I can't back up these bets with anything concrete. They
>> > just
>> > seem like safe bets.
>>
>> Luckily, we have people from a relevant company (Netflix)
>> participating in the thread who *can* speak for their own contractual
>> obligations.  If *no one* is willing to speak for their contractual
>> obligations, then I think we should assume that there are no such
>> obligations and act according to our best judgement.
>
>
> That would be an incorrect assumption. Cox Communications has to satisfy
> such obligations that definitely do exist, and this is true for most (all?)
> US commercial video providers.
>
> Cox requires that existing DRM/CP solutions be supported by this proposal,
> and the defined CDM mechanism appears to satisfy this requirement.

The question was about the ClearKey CDM in particular.  Is this
acceptable for Cox Communications, or do their contractual obligations
require "real" DRM?

~TJ
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 18:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC