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

On 17/06/2013 09:38, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote:

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

If you take "DRM" in its broadest possible meaning, that is an
understandable confusion. The term is generally used for a specific class
of content protection mechanisms, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management



I actually find it commendable that the EME authors prefer talking about
"encrypted media" and "secure key exchange", FWIW. Rather clearer and less
emotionally loaded.

There are many methods for content protection/restriction, and not all are
based on encrypted media and encryption key management. Watermarking, for
example, seems to be the de facto mechanism used by some industries to
reduce unwanted distribution of content by applying a thin layer of
technology and a thicker layer of social/legal process.


Many such solutions can be implemented on the web platform today without
requiring any extra layer of standard/interop. At the moment, that is not
the case with encrypted media: you cannot refer to encrypted content in an
HTML media element and expect the user agent to do the right thing. Hence,
as I understand it, the focus on EME in the HTML WG.

--
Olivier



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 09:13:42 UTC