On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > >> We don't have any requirement that all browsers/devices implement the >> same DRM. This isn't like video codecs. As long as they all support the >> same encryption format (for example ISO Common Encryption as described in >> the specification or WebM encryption) we can deliver the same files to all >> devices with the same interaction model (as defined by the specification). >> There's some per-DRM back end work, but this is manageable and a great >> improvement on what we have today. >> > Aquiring a license from every DRM vendor is not feasible for web authors. > Contacting Widevine alone is also not feasible to not being contactable. > Hence HTML-DRM excludes web authors. > What you're saying is that using DRM for your content is difficult. But no authors are required to use DRM by this specification and I believe many people do not wish to do so. Those authors who wish to use DRM, but aren't in a position to pay for DRM licenses or implement back-end services with multiple DRM servers are indeed excluded, *by the existing DRM landscape*, not by anything we are proposing. As Glenn and I have repeatedly pointed out, the Encrypted Media Extensions are intended to support multiple DRMs and don't define a specific "HTML-DRM".
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 17:23:14 UTC