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

EME and proprietary plug-ins

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:51:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAue1KCt2fOk=RTnPwSrixV_Grx7ZXh4JDQAUyByCFS3TjA@mail.gmail.com>
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.
[3] EME doesn't define the API between the CDM and the browser.
Henri Sivonen
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 14:52:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:22 UTC