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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:28:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC=5pzeuRn5eYvg0poNtFpVxoG3pwjmhPHR5RcepZpwpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
2012/3/5 Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>:
> 2012/3/5 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:29:12 -0000, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>> oh? where? I represent a commercial video distributor (Cox), and Cox is
>>> certainly interested in open-source/clearkey CDMs, but as I have
>>> repeatedly stated, this is not a decision open to video distributors.. you
>>> are simply barking up the wrong tree
>>
>> I've meant it interested in a sense that it's going to be a solution you
>> actually plan to use.
>>
>> >From what you're saying I take that you're not allowed to use ClearKey,
>> and therefore ease of implementation and interoperability of ClearKey
>> solution has no relevance to availability of content you distribute.
>
> no, that's not what I said; I said that content owners dictate what DRM/CP
> must be used by Cox; Cox could suggest they try something different or
> complain or could refuse to license content under their terms, but it
> ultimately comes down to what *they* (the content owners) choose and whether
> Cox wishes to intentionally handicap its business or not;
>
> it may be in the future that content owners will migrate to ClearKey, but
> right now that isn't what they use;

This, right here, is the part where it's clear that a closed-source
and/or royalty-encumbered CDM is a de facto requirement for the spec.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 00:29:01 UTC

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