Re: Ringmark is now open source

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Matt Kelly <mk@fb.com> wrote:
> RE: DRM
> DRM is a complicated topic, I agree (although I don't know if it's up there with flying cars--or at least, I hope not. :)).  The point is that DRM is important because app developers require it, otherwise they can't build their apps. Because such a large amount of developers and apps (and hence, users) rely on it, it belongs in Ring 1.  It will be a much harder (probably impossible) sell to consumers if these web apps aren't available, given the current market.
>
> Netflix/Google/Microsoft introduced a spec that aims to solve this problem.  I haven’t looked at it in detail yet and I expect that the spec will evolve as more folks add input--however, it might be a viable option.  There is movement in this space.

That spec is unofficial[1], which means we cannot rely on it at all.

Besides, it assumes the browser has a certain behavior, which means
that a specially-engineered browser defeats all content protection
measures: a single valid session can allow the valid user to get all
the content and save it on disk in a single flow, so as to play it
back any time, copy it, etc.

The spec they made was designed in the hope that movie companies etc.
would find this DRM system acceptable, while allowing open-source
implementations. There is no certainty, though. MPAA has not given a
single statement on this, let alone a blessing.

This is why I ask: what functionality do you expect from DRM? This
acronym is meaningless today, because its definition does not specify
how you manage digital rights.

This being said, vendor plugins are acceptable in this field. We need
more competition between implementations before spec'ing DRM in stone,
and before testing for its support in mobile handsets.


  [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html

ps. Specs should not invent, they should only standardize a proven technique.

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:12:19 UTC