W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-restrictedmedia@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Watermarking [Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group]

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:20:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEnTvdBsi-5sGdXb_9yR+_VY3f+ajpcE2bupciPv8twuhSoPiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> > There are many such contracts and they are confidential, so unfortunately
> > I can't post them.
>
> I understand your position - caught in the middle - but you're asking us
> as a group to propose technical solutions to requirements that we are
> prohibited from reading.  Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
> Likewise, you're asking the W3C to compromise their Open Web principles
> on behalf of those same secret requirements.
>
> A bit of transparency here would be nice.
>
> Can we at least get a written summary of requirements from the
> stakeholders?  I.e. not Netflix, Apple etc. but the people whose
> licensing terms are forcing this issue?
>
> > Realistically, I don't think you will get studio requirements posted
> > publicly, but that's not a question for me.
>
> Okay, for whom *is* it a question then?  It angers me that the W3C might
> be tasked with satisfying secret requirements, especially to the
> detriment of Open Web principles.
>
> > So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that
> > meet studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is
> provide a
> > clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element. What
> > we're not trying to do is standardize a solution to the studio
> > requirements. That would be rather ambitious, I feel.
>
> What we (meaning opponents of EME) are trying to do is propose
> alternative technical solutions that would satisfy both the Open Web
> principles, *and* the requirements of the content owners.  As a first
> step, I'm suggesting that we hear what those latter requirements are
> from the horse's mouth.
>

I understand that's what you're trying to do, but that's different from
what EME is trying to do. Instead our proposal is limited to standardizing
the API to the components (CDMs) that implement solutions to the studio
requirements.

I appreciate your desire to develop a better solution to the studios'
requirements, but that's not a straightforward thing. Several companies
have built successful businesses over many years doing just that. I'm not
sure what help you expect with that here. What I can say is that if you
develop such a solution, it would probably fit right in under the EME API.

...Mark




>
> --
> Duncan Bayne
> ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
> duncan_bayne
>
> I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
> urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 01:21:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 14 January 2014 01:21:13 UTC