Re: CfC: Create Media Task Force

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:08:53 +0100, Paul Cotton  
<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> Does this imply that the group is agreeing to take on the Encrypted  
>> Media proposal as a work item?
>> In the discussion on public-html about that proposal it seemed like  
>> there was substantial opposition to it.
>
> Yes.  If you object to taking up this item then you should object now  
> and provide your reasons for that objection.

I object for the following reasons:

1. The discussion about this proposal has already started in this group  
and several issues about proposal's accuracy and security has been raised  
already (some of those issues have been filed in this group's tracker). It  
would be counter-productive to fragment or repeat this discussion in a new  
group.

2. Proposal is related to element and API designed by that group, and  
representatives of browser vendors and companies proposing Encrypted Media  
participate in that group already, so this group is appropriate and  
sufficient to discuss this proposal.

3. The only mechanism that Encrypted Media draft openly defines, and only  
one which did not raise many objections was the "ClearKey" scheme. There  
has been "http+aes" counter-proposal for it, and I'm going to propose  
refined version of that solution. It would be unfortunate if two different  
groups worked on overlapping solutions to the same problem.

4. DRM is a controversial issue and the spec is tied to interests of  
powerful corporations. I would prefer discussions about it to take place  
in a group which has large visibility, to ensure public scrutiny and help  
keep all parties accountable. I believe public-html meets this criteria,  
but I'm not sure how many decisions in the Media TF would happen behind  
closed doors or whether that group would be susceptible to being unfairly  
tilted towards commercial interests of few participants.

-- 
regards, Kornel Lesiński

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 20:15:18 UTC