[Bug 20964] EME supports content that depends on servers with a finite life.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20964

--- Comment #20 from Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > (In reply to comment #16)
> > ...
> > > My view is that this is not a bug, but a feature. And so we should close
> > > this bug. As Joe points out it's also true of the web platform as a whole.
> > 
> > Joe has been challenged to prove this claim and has not done so. You
> > are welcome to addess this challenge?  Please demonstrate how the
> > web platform can currently prevent the user storing content received
> > and presenting it in the future when the server from which the content
> > was received is no longer accessible?
> 
> My response to your challenge is not going to be very satisfying I am
> afraid. I don't have any magic secret bullet. However I intentionally did
> not set a very high bar. See my text "without further user circumvention".

In other words your definition of 'circumvention' is so broad that
you are really not saying anything.  However I would not that you
used you statement of 'nothing' to back 

> Since UA's by default (at least none I know of) do not store a continuous
> capture of Canvas or DOM information, someone would have to create a
> circumvention tool. In this case it would be fairly straightforward, they
> could simply rebuild a UA they had source for to include this functionality.
> They could also inject script into the page and alter the user agent to
> defeat whatever UA detection mechanism the application writer has put into
> place. 

The intention of the open web platform is that anyone can build their
own UA, so the above argument is not constructive.

> The end user does not have to create this tool, merely use it. But this puts
> them on the same footing as someone trying to defeat a more obfuscated
> version of DRM relying on an obfuscated binary or hardware.

It is completely ridiculous to suggest that a requirement that
open web standards can be independently implemented amounts to
circumvention of DRM.   This is just not constructive.

> It is only a
> difference in degree of difficulty for the initial circumvention and the
> acquisition of the circumvention tool, between a solution based entirely on
> the Web Platform as-is and the mechanism proposed by EME. However this
> degree of difficulty is the critical concern for content providers wishing
> to protect their content. 

It is not just a 'difference in degree of difficulty' - a web browser
is specified without restrictions on storing the content.

> A trivial example of what I mean is the practice of denying "View Source" on
> a web page. Easy to circumvent for anyone at all experienced, but not
> automatic.

Calling normal use of a web browser 'circumvention' is ridiculous and
not constructive.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 22:33:08 UTC