- From: John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:04:27 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Mays, David" <David_Mays@Comcast.com>
- cc: "Kotay, Sree" <Sree_Kotay@cable.comcast.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
I fully agree that there are reasons two or more parties parties would want to protect whatever they are transmitting between each other from a third party (or fourth, not sure what the correct terminology is if it is more than two parties in the first place). The problem is that this proposal is not about that, it is largely about DRM and cannot be complete in an interoperable way. There are other technologies for securing communication between multiple parties. On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Mays, David wrote: > Encrypted media delivery has uses other than DRM. > > One obvious one I can think of is for secure private video communications. Think of a doctor transmitting a video diagnosis to a patient, and it's easy to imagine a case for encrypted video that has nothing to do with DRM. > > An argument that its only purpose is to support DRM is uncreative at best, disingenuous at worst. > > Ian is right; don't blow off your hand to deal with a thorn in your finger. > > Dave > > (This is my personal opinion, not that of my employer.) > > > "John C. Vernaleo" <john@netpurgatory.com> wrote:
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 22:04:50 UTC