Re: Open Source implementations Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@cablelabs.com> wrote:
> I do think the confusion was that the word "adversary" in the technical
> DRM sense is fine, but that usage wasn't clear at first. In the
> nontechnical usage the word is highly prejudicial. I think part of the
> problem may also have been that we were talking about the "user" as an
> adversary rather than the "unauthorized user." This may be semantics, but
> of course we must ensure that the "authorized user" has the necessary
> credentials to remove the encryption.

The authorized user is still an adversary in the technical sense - in
many DRM schemes it is desirable that the authorized user only gain
the ability to view the media, and must not be given access to the
actual data.

~TJ

Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 17:39:04 UTC