W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Technical Review of EME (DRM in HTML5)

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:02:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJQvAudb_drzyyswPYpEuC2HMfgXzs-GyoadP4mA5v+cDvQp+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Tracking Protection WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
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

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.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 18:03:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:04 UTC