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: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:35:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBSgwAC6NWYCdhD5xnNiX+mfB42dcbPNrm_udOyS1EGUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Confirmation that the development of CDM "key systems" is covered by
>> >> the
>> >> W3C Patent Policy: should a company decide that they want to create
>> >> their
>> >> own CDM, and they do so, they should not face face IP litigation from
>> >> W3C
>> >> members. Each existing CDM vendor, who is also a w3c member, would
>> >> check
>> >> their patent holdings for relevant IP. A fictional example would be
>> >> "Encryption of a network video stream and management of a collection of
>> >> keys
>> >> for decoding of the data".
>> >
>> > nothing in the proposal requires a specific CDM to be covered by W3C PP;
>> > nor
>> > does the W3C PP or PD require this; so you are asking for something that
>> > is
>> > out of scope; this is no different from someone defining a canvas
>> > context
>> > that is IPR encumbered and publishing its availability via
>> > canvas.getConext("anEncumberedCanvasContext");
>>
>> Once again, *please* stop attempting to derail conversations about the
>> badness of CDMs by falsely claiming they are "out of scope".
>
>
> We disagree.
>
>>
>> CDMs are novel, essential pieces of technology for the API.  There is
>> *no reasonable argument* for calling them "out of scope".
>
>
> Wrong. Other than Clearkey, individual CDMs are not part of what is
> specified in the proposal.

And, *once again*, the fact that the CDMs that will *actually be used*
aren't specified in the spec means the spec is incomplete.  If this
spec moves forward, I will formally object to this lack as well,
because it is not possible to implement the spec in practice without
the CDMs that will actually be used.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 21:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:47 GMT