- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:02:48 +0000
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Tracking Protection WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >> Like what? Who are Clear Key's customers? Does anybody on this mailing >> list plan to use Clear Key to protect their artist's content? > > Does that matter if there are other use-cases as well ? The purported use cases of Clear Key would be better addressed by Hixie's http+aes design from last year. However, it got zero traction suggesting that the supposed use cases don't really need solving beyond https. (In other words, it seems that services like Facebook and Flickr that want to enable photo sharing between a group of friends don't distrust the CDNs involved.) The case that's served by Clear Key but not http+aes is demonstrating two independent interoperable implementations of EME without needing to show interop between two independent DRM implementations, since DRM systems are designed not to be independently interoperably implementable. I think talking about hypothetical use cases of Clear Key that someone who isn't advocating EME might have is not helpful. If there was real demand for addressing those use cases, we should address them with Hixie's http+aes design. I think it would be more productive to focus on Key Systems that have an actual chance of being used for Hollywood feature films. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 18:03:16 UTC