Re: Alternatives to DRM?

On 4/12/2013 11:46 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le vendredi 12 avril 2013 à 11:29 -0400, Jeff Jaffe a écrit :
>> DReaM [1] appears to indicate feasibility.
>>   Whether a feasible solution
>> is sufficiently practical for implementation (and sufficiently addresses
>> the requirements of premium content use cases) arguably should be
>> discussed in a Working Group.
> DReaM being a dead project as far as I can determine, and not having
> found any sign that it ever gained any traction, I'm not very optimistic
> on the assessment of practicality.
>
> I guess my point is that a positive assessment of that practicality
> should be a prerequisite in investing a Working Group time on that
> technology.

This appears to be a Catch-22.

You seem to be saying that the WG should not evaluate the solution 
unless it has gotten traction in the marketplace.

I believe that a major driver of getting traction in the marketplace is 
the realization that it has unique value as a standard that sits in the 
middle of a polarized discussion (hard-core DRM on the one-side and no 
DRM on the other side).

If the standards organization dismisses it from consideration, then it 
removes all motivation from either "pole" to take the hard path of 
getting traction in the marketplace.

I would agree with you that there should be a prerequisite, but I would 
argue for a weaker prerequisite.  A weaker prerequisite is that there 
should be a WG participant willing to passionately argue for that 
approach.  (I note that today soft-DRM does not even satisfy the weaker 
prerequisite.)

>
> Dom
>

Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 15:54:57 UTC