Re: "Open Web Platform" versus "Web Platform" Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote:

> What else can EME do?
>

First, to be clear, our interest is in using EME for DRM. There's been no
secret about this: it has been very clear from the start.

However, as with any standardization task, we try to standardize
capabilities that are generic - as far as makes sense - rather than
over-specific to a particular use-case. Also, there is clearly a desire in
some quarters to see deployment of solutions other than DRM and so we are
trying to leave space for that within the design.

The technical answer is that EME is intended for any application where it's
required to play back encrypted audio/video media in a web browser,
specifically any such application where it is necessary to deliver the key
separately from the content itself and where the decryption is intended to
be done in the browser (or OS) rather than by the page's Javascript. We
chose a design where the key delivery takes place via the page's Javascript
rather than via side-channel network communication.

DRM is one such application. Playback of encrypted content where the key is
known to the user or available to the Javascript (for example as with
Apple's HLS, which is widely used) is another.

I could make up further examples, without implying anything about their
usefulness, since I am just making them up: client-side watermarking,
"live" services with key rotation where the keys are made available at
specific times but don't need to be strictly controlled once available,
"light-weight" content protection where the key is obscured from the
Javascript page, but there's no robustness to the browser decryption
components.

I'll make one quick comment to agree that for some of these cases there may
be other solutions. We tried to design a single API which could be used for
a variety of applications and which could deal with content-format-specific
encryption (e.g. ISO Common Encryption).

...Mark


>
> John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Matt Ivie wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Being Free Software and being covered by a patent are two different
> >>> things. By confusing the two matters you're making more downstream
> >>> confusion as a result. We should think of copyright issues and
> >>patent
> >>> issues as they are: two separate issues.
> >>
> >>I can meet you there when you meet me at EME is not DRM :-)
> >>
> >>(Both are examples of separate issues that have significant linkages,
> >>and related downstream confusion...)
> >>
> >>Besides, we're talking about "Open" standards here, and bringing forth
> >>x264 without acknowledging the fact that the software still uses
> >>technology that is not "open" is, I believe relevant, if for no other
> >>reason than an illustration of how "Open" software can still use
> >>non-open standards/technologies (unless you are going to tell me that
> >>you can freely modify the H.264 codec at will, with no repercussions).
> >>
> >>JF
>
> --
> Sent from my Replicant phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> Visit replicant.us
>
>