Re: Technical Review of EME (DRM in HTML5)

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>>> Like what? Who are Clear Key's customers? Does anybody on this mailing
>>> list plan to use Clear Key to protect their artist's content?
>> 
>> Does that matter if there are other use-cases as well ?
> 
> The purported use cases of Clear Key would be better addressed by
> Hixie's http+aes design from last year. However, it got zero traction
> suggesting that the supposed use cases don't really need solving
> beyond https. (In other words, it seems that services like Facebook
> and Flickr that want to enable photo sharing between a group of
> friends don't distrust the CDNs involved.)
> 
> The case that's served by Clear Key but not http+aes is demonstrating
> two independent interoperable implementations of EME without needing
> to show interop between two independent DRM implementations, since DRM
> systems are designed not to be independently interoperably
> implementable.

It's also proven useful for debug and test of the non-DRM-specific parts of the implementation.

> 
> I think talking about hypothetical use cases of Clear Key that someone
> who isn't advocating EME might have is not helpful. If there was real
> demand for addressing those use cases, we should address them with
> Hixie's http+aes design.
> 
> I think it would be more productive to focus on Key Systems that have
> an actual chance of being used for Hollywood feature films.

That's fine by me - it wasn't me that started these threads about clearkey. I'm actually a little perplexed why there is so much comment about it when it's obviously the DRM keysystems that present the main challenge.

...Mark
> 
> -- 
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 19:14:52 UTC