- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:41:40 -0800
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, 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
- Message-ID: <CAJK2wqXwOmzUCoVuyFi84pJQ5XKJYDb2oAfkDzJ3Nj1oAOVO1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Actually, Henri, you're conflating Flash (or Silverlight) availability with "known licensing terms for DRM module". That's not actually true, for two reasons - first, that Flash (or Silverlight) is not universally available beyond desktop systems, and secondly, just having Flash doesn't mean that Flash-DRMed content is universally available. (E.g., much DRMed content was blocked on Google TV, despite having the Flash runtime.) My point is simply that using Flash (or Silverlight) as a prerequisite runtime for DRM does not mean having Flash/SL is the same as having a license to the DRM "box". All that using Flash/SL meant was that that runtime was a prerequisite, not that it was sufficient to equal "you can run this on an arbitrary machine with Flash/SL." Owners still could (and did) restrict the content further. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > 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 21:42:09 UTC