- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:50:40 -0700
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+faOkaziDatmxaWv3+hTbqxw3gL14PCA-oOhCr1pEyccQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > I must ask, though, if the sponsors of this proposal truly believe that > the outcome of this will be a royalty-free CDM that can be implemented on > any platform, why bother with the intermediary steps? > If commercial video providers are to make use of the <video> element to deliver *current* DRM encumbered content, then the browser must either implement a proprietary, non-standardized DRM-specific DRM client, or implement a standards based DRM client plugin. From the perspective of Cox, as a commercial video provider, we prefer the latter over the former if the mechanism for exposing this functionality is common across all browsers. Furthermore, if browser vendors should happen to mutually agree on the DRM client plugin mechanism as well, then that would enhance interoperability. The current proposal satisfies the need of exposing a common interface to this functionality to the JS client code, and thus satisfies part of these requirements. Regarding the use of non-IPR-encumbered CDM technologies, though that is something we would like to see happen over time, subject to content owner adoption, it won't happen overnight. There are huge investments in infrastructure and large libraries of content based on *current* DRM systems that would take considerable time to adopt even if the content owners began to authorize newer non-encumbered DRM systems. So the bottom line is that a solution that simultaneously requires transitioning to a new DRM solution is simply not an option at this time. It may become one over time, but business realities are otherwise. > There's a huge difference in that we know what the current de facto > standard plug-ins are, but don't know what the de facto standard CDMs will > be or who will control them. As I have stated repeatedly, it would help > immensely to evaluate the risks if the details of the CDMs intended for > production use were publicly disclosed. Discussion without the full > information is frustrating for all parties. Many current DRM systems maintain non-disclosed aspects that cannot be revealed due to licensing restrictions, so this isn't going to happen. I would suggest browser vendors such as Opera discuss these matters with their commercial partners to (1) determine what the actual requirements are at this time and (2) begin planning possible paths to transition to non-encumbered systems. Just to be clear, the likely outcome of not proceeding with this proposal (or some equivalent) will be that: (1) commercial video providers will continue to use and rely on <object> and proprietary plugins (silverlight and flash), while reducing the overall interoperability with HTML5 and while reducing access to new accessibility, metadata, and media control functions of <video>; (2) commercial video providers will push browser vendors to implement proprietary DRM-specific DRM clients in order to add this functionality to <video>; The current proposal avoids both of these outcomes while increasing interoperability and providing a path that can more readily lead to non-encumbered, fully disclosed DRM systems.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 14:51:45 UTC