Re: “Content protection” vs. “DRM” (was: Re: Letter on DRM in HTML from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus)

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> On 6/16/2013 2:41 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> To clarify, the HTML WG Draft Charter neither mentions DRM or EME. All
>>> that
>>> it states is that content protection is in scope for the HTML Working
>>> Group.
>>
>> It's unclear to me what distinction the W3C intends to make between
>> the terms "content protection" and "DRM". To illustrate the
>> distinction, could you, please, give an example of something that
>> constitutes "content protection" for digital content but does not
>> constitute "DRM"?
>>
> I did not press the Director for a specific definition, but I will provide
> my best interpretation.
>
> The Web and TV Interest Group brought in a requirement for "content
> protection" - a level of protection for premium content that meets their
> needs.  The Director, by declaring "content protection" to be "in scope" has
> declared that the HTML Working Group should find a solution that meets these
> requirements and are consistent with W3C policies and practices.
>
> I can imagine many potential solutions to content protection, but several of
> them might fail to either meet the requirements or be consistent with W3C
> policies.  Here are some examples:
>
> 1. The Working Group could propose an entire closed DRM solution. Such a
> solution would be inconsistent with W3C policies.
>
> 2. The Working Group could propose a breakable open source DRM solution that
> relies on social norms and convenience to encourage people not to break the
> system.  Such a solution might be consistent with W3C policies (although one
> would need to see if it could steer clear of patents), but might be deemed
> inadequate by the group with the requirement.
>
> 3. The Working Group could propose a password based access control system.
> Such a solution would almost certainly be consistent with W3C policies, but
> it is unlikely that it would be deemed adequate by the group with the
> requirement.
>
> 4. The Working Group could propose an open framework, including APIs, to
> have a common means to access non-standard CDMs.  This approach (EME) at the
> moment is getting the most traction in the Working Group.  The current draft
> still has issues raised against it, and has not yet been reviewed by the
> Director.
>
> I'm sure this is not exhaustive, but hopefully it illustrates that there is
> a non-trivial design space for the Working Group.

My reading of the above is that #1, #2 and #4 involve some sort of DRM
(with the DRM part either inside or outside of a W3C spec) and,
therefore, don't illustrate a difference between "content protection"
and "DRM" except to the extent #2 distinguishes "breakable DRM" from
robust DRM. Password-based access control to all types of Web
resources has already been developed, so it would be weird for
"content protection" as a new chartered item to mean #3.

It seems to me that "content protection" is just a synonym for "DRM".

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 08:39:23 UTC