Re: Encrypting content stored on untrusted CDNs

>
>
>
>> It's when you're trying to prevent the user from getting to the
>> content that it stops making any kind of sense.
>
>Yes, I understand this does not make any sense to you. But it does to
>others. It's a pre-requisite for services like Netflix to use HTML5
>instead of plugins. This list is not the place to argue the ethics of
>that. W3C needs to decide whether to work on making that a possibility,
>or whether HTML5 is simply not going to be a suitable technology for our
>segment of the industry, which would be a shame.
>
>...Mark
>
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
>> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>> 
>
>


Indeed, Mark's point is the crux of the issue. There are several
participants in the Web & TV IG and in this group who have content
protection requirements and many of them have spoken up. These
participants hope to use HTML5 because they believe it can provide a
better solution than what is currently available. I am hopeful that we can
work together to find a solution that both meets the requirements of those
who need (at least currently) content protection to provide their service
and those who are charged with the stewardship of HTML.

Thanks,
-Clarke