Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I cannot speak to any contractual obligations.
> > However, I would bet that for *some* applications the protection that
> > ClearKey affords can be satisfactory.
> > I would also bet that a mechanism that is implemented in hundreds of
> > millions of browser installations is attractive for content owners.
> > Another bet: given lowered barriers to entry, we will see additional
> options
> > beyond Clear Key and the commercial CDMs we know today.
> > Unfortunately, I can't back up these bets with anything concrete. They
> just
> > seem like safe bets.
>
> Luckily, we have people from a relevant company (Netflix)
> participating in the thread who *can* speak for their own contractual
> obligations.  If *no one* is willing to speak for their contractual
> obligations, then I think we should assume that there are no such
> obligations and act according to our best judgement.


That would be an incorrect assumption. Cox Communications has to satisfy
such obligations that definitely do exist, and this is true for most (all?)
US commercial video providers.

Cox requires that existing DRM/CP solutions be supported by this proposal,
and the defined CDM mechanism appears to satisfy this requirement. It is
not an option (at least at this time and for the foreseeable future) to
migrate these services to newly defined DRM/CP regimes. It may be possible
to do this over time, but it would first require the content industry to
migrate in that direction. Essentially it is the content industry who is
making the decisions about what CDMs will be necessary to commercially
employ their content.