Re: Key distribution

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > (source: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/mpreq/cpreq.html)
>
> Thank you for the reference to this document. I was not aware that
> anything even resembling a purported requirement document for EME
> existed in public. In fact, the URL you posted has never before been
> posted to either this mailing list or public-html (either with the
> https scheme or with the http scheme).
>
> > This is a necessary corollary of the previously quoted statement; if
> servers
> > are needed to view legally purchased content (even if only to obtain
> > decryption keys), then the legally purchased content will be unavailable
> if
> > and while said servers are down.
>
> This assumes that EME would be used for cases where media is
> supposedly "sold" or "purchased". Is anyone actually planning on using
> EME for that case as opposed to using it for Netflix-like subscription
> streaming, for rental implemented as time-limited online streaming
> access (something that Voddler already does using HTML5 without DRM
> for some movies) or for off-line rental where the offlining is
> implemented using generic offlining primitives so that it looks like
> streaming from the EME perspective?
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:14 PM, John Simmons <johnsim@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In addition to Mark’s comments, it is also important to note that many
> > services permit the use of “persistent” licenses, which are stored on the
> > device - or embedded in the content itself - so that the user does not
> need
> > to be online to consume the content.
>
> Are embedded licenses in any way relevant to EME, though? If no
> communication with a license server after obtaining the media file is
> needed, it seems to me that the API surface provided by EME is not
> needed. That is, embedded licenses could already be supported in HTML5
> video as if the DRM scheme was yet another proprietary codec without
> the API surface provided by EME.
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> > If you wish to sell a perpetual right to use a piece of content that is
> > later independent of the operation of any particular infrastructure,
> then as
> > John pointed out, you can use EME to deliver a perpetual license and then
> > have the license stored by the user, with the content.
>
> Where "perpetual" means "for the lifetime of clients for the DRM scheme",
> right?
>

Yes, you are right. I just meant "longer than the lifetime of the
servers/service", so perpetual from the point of view of the provider of
the service/content, but nothing can be guaranteed to be perpetual from the
point of view of the user (you also need a video decoder and other things).

...Mark


>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>