- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:28:13 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
2012/3/5 Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>: > 2012/3/5 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> >> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:29:12 -0000, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >>> oh? where? I represent a commercial video distributor (Cox), and Cox is >>> certainly interested in open-source/clearkey CDMs, but as I have >>> repeatedly stated, this is not a decision open to video distributors.. you >>> are simply barking up the wrong tree >> >> I've meant it interested in a sense that it's going to be a solution you >> actually plan to use. >> >> >From what you're saying I take that you're not allowed to use ClearKey, >> and therefore ease of implementation and interoperability of ClearKey >> solution has no relevance to availability of content you distribute. > > no, that's not what I said; I said that content owners dictate what DRM/CP > must be used by Cox; Cox could suggest they try something different or > complain or could refuse to license content under their terms, but it > ultimately comes down to what *they* (the content owners) choose and whether > Cox wishes to intentionally handicap its business or not; > > it may be in the future that content owners will migrate to ClearKey, but > right now that isn't what they use; This, right here, is the part where it's clear that a closed-source and/or royalty-encumbered CDM is a de facto requirement for the spec. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 00:29:01 UTC