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

On 07/03/2012, at 6:35 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Christian Kaiser <kaiserc@google.com> wrote:
> > In the browser market, I'd argue that barriers to entry would stay the same
> > as they are today if one assumes that the proposal would result in a CDM
> > plug-in model.
> 
> So far, I haven't seen anyone step forward saying that they intend to
> produce a pluggable CDM if browsers were to provide an integration
> point.
> 
> On the other hand, there's no indication from browser vendors that
> also have DRM back ends in-house (Google, Microsoft, Apple) whether
> they'd provide support for pluggable CDMs in their browsers (as
> opposed to only integrating their in-house DRM without a public API).
> 
> Considering what's been said so far, pluggable CDMs might be a
> theoretical thing that no one intends to produce.
> 
> You may assume that commercial video distributors will work with browser vendors to implement or integrate CDMs for existing DRM back ends. Cox will certainly do this. If multiple vendor browsers should employ a common CDM integration interface, then this would certainly be used and preferred over a scenario where a CDM must be integrated separately with every browser. However, such a possible common CDM integration interface should be maintained outside the scope of the current proposal.
> 

After having watched this discussion, I actually believe that this proposal would be a lot more acceptable if generalised for any external resource (e.g. including img and object) and if it included a CDM plugin interface.

Silvia.