- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:51:54 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, public-html-admin@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > The question that lies open before us is: given that DRM exists, should it > be implemented through proprietary plugins or should it be possible to hook > it somehow into the open web platform? That's not really the question EME poses. Rather, EME poses the question: Should DRM be implemented as a large non-user-modifiable black box whose licensing characteristics are known[1] with a broad existing API[2] that doesn't integrate into <video> or should it be implemented as a smaller non-user-modifiable black box whose licensing characteristics are unknown with a narrower yet-to-be-defined API[3] that integrates into <video>? It's easy to see making the black box smaller and the API narrower as an improvement over the status quo. Moving from known licensing and API to yet-unknown licensing and API (potentially multiple licensing models and APIs) may not be an improvement. [1] On Mac and Windows, the user gets the DRM box (Flash or Silverlight) for $0 and the browser vendor doesn't need a contractual relationship with the DRM vendor. [2] NPAPI [3] EME doesn't define the API between the CDM and the browser. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 14:52:31 UTC