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

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.


It is not required for the spec, but it will be required for practical
deployment in the near term. Change doesn't happen over night, at least
without burning down the town.

We view a standardized interface to CDMs as an initial step on the path to
achieving more openness and more interoperability. It is an enabling
technology.