RE: Oppose DRM ! Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Henry's reply on the bug has done a terrific job analysing one of the
systems. You might find that there are many people on the HTML WG that are
sympathetic to both sides of the discussion: they believe in open source
and in the open Web, but at the same time also understand that leaving
valuables around in the open without locking them up in a display cabinet
invites thieves rather than discouraging them.

So this is an effort that I hoped would lead towards making more of the
protective measures open by learning from what others have done.

It's well possible that the authors of the spec have already done this
analysis and learnt from it, but that's not obvious to the general member.
It's basically part of showing due diligence (god I hate that word),
showing care was taken during designing the solution.

It may well be that this is a simple exercise and a paragraph of reply in
the bug (like Henry's reply) is sufficient. I don't know. I'm not a DRM
expert. But when this comes to a vote, I'd like to be better informed.

HTH.

Cheers,
Silvia.
On 22 Feb 2013 21:57, "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  I think it would help if you provided a bit more information about the
> goal here. I don’t think this bug is currently actionable by the editors –
> there’s no proposal made. Since EME isn’t a content protection system but a
> way of abstracting different content protection systems you might usefully
> contribute by filing bugs for EME if you think it can’t support those open
> source systems.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:23 PM
> *To:* Mark Watson
> *Cc:* Henri Sivonen; Timothy B. Terriberry; public-html-media@w3.org;
> Andrew Davis
> *Subject:* Re: Oppose DRM ! Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media
> Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)****
>
> ** **
>
> FYI: I've registered a bug on EME to request these open source systems
> being analysed and a statement being made about how they compare to EME:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21081
>
> I think it will be useful for the participants of the HTML WG to
> understand the differences.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.****
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone****
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 5:55 AM, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> > (Moving from -admin to -media.)
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
> wrote:
> >> There is also this: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/ ?
> >
> > It seems that this is an implementation of OMA DRM. Upon quick
> > inspection, it seems to me that OMA DRM depends on a client-side
> > secret (private key for a public key) that the user can't read or
> > replace and on the DRM-related software on the client device not being
> > user-modifiable. Have I understood correctly?****
>
> I'm not familiar with how the key provisioning works, but yes, in general
> DRM relies on there being a non-user-modifiable* component on the client
> side (this should be obvious based on the goals of DRM).
>
> ...Mark
>
> * of course I mean 'difficult to modify for some formal definition of
> difficult'.****
>
> >
> > --
> > Henri Sivonen
> > hsivonen@iki.fi
> > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> >****
>
> ** **
>