- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:00:45 -0400
- To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
- CC: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 8/20/2013 1:59 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Wouldn't it be > > > better that W3C mandates that CDMs specifications are available so > they > > > could be implemented by third parties (me)? > > > > We've talked about that, but what it boils down to is that any such > > system would be of no interest to the main players behind EME, because > > they don't *want* any third party being able to decrypt their streams. > > That would, for them, defeat the entire purpose of DRM. > > > Yeah, but I'm not talking about third parties decrypting the streams, > I say I find better a some KBs key string that several MBs blob, the > key can be purchased to the majors while the implementation can be > developed by anybody, and the result is the same.If they insists on > say that they don't want third parties decrypting the streams, then I > must to think they have other reasons (probably dishonests) to force > me to use their particular implementation... > > > Re. your other points about the W3C mission, I happen to agree. You can > > read them here: > > > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html > > > > Of particular relevance: > > > > "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all > > people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, > > native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental > > ability." > > > > But sadly, those in the W3C with the authority to nix work on EME > > disagree. > > > Then we are doomed :-( > Just to be clear, W3C agree with the W3C goal statement above. We disagree that the statement implies that content protection should not be in scope. The Director has not at this time taken a position on the EME spec.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 13:00:55 UTC