Re: EME

[Moving to public-restrictedmedia as requested]

> Having noticed concerns from the free software community, it seems
mandatory to an open web that the API must mandate that all CDMs be
unconditionally cross-platform.

By 'unconditionally cross-platform' I assume you mean 'works on any flavour
of X' for X in { Windows, MacOS, Linux, Android, iOS, ... }

I am not aware of any solutions meeting content provider requirements that
also meet this requirement. If there were, I agree that would be an
exceptionally good thing and I would expect such a solution to quickly gain
market share as a result of this advantage. I expect such a solution is not
presently feasible. I'd be reluctant to tie the standard to a requirement
which is not known to be achievable. Indeed, one of the purposes of EME is
to make it simpler for service providers to support a range of DRMs, in
order to address a range of platforms, precisely because there isn't a
single cross-platform DRM.

The aspects of EME that achieve this goal are the common
interaction/messaging model and common encryption.

>  forceing any group using them to offer their content to all internet
users, as is already mandated by current W3C standards

Whilst W3C standards may encourage service providers to offer their service
to 'all internet users' they can do nothing to "force" this. Service
providers are free entities who are entitled to offer or not offer their
services to users of their choice (at least as far as that is allowed
within the law). For example, the Netflix service is available only in
certain countries, simply because it would be too expensive for us to
launch service globally in one go. We hope to get there, but it will take
some years.

>I'd also add that they should be able to be viewed without an Internet
connection, be able to be backed up in case one's connection fails and
be viewable in any media player of choice which would otherwise hinder
choice on the users' part.

I think you have in mind services where a user had purchased a copy of the
content according to an "ownership" model, and as a result the user has an
expectation of choice as to what they can do with the copy that they "own".

We're also interested in cases where the user purchases a limited right to
use a service. For example, streaming services based on subscription or
rental models. In these cases the user gets just what the service offers.
For example, Netflix does not offer the possibility to view content without
an Internet connection. This is a business decision: we think the money
this would cost us (for the associated rights) is better spent instead on
more content. That might change if the business conditions change, for
example if there was a groundswell of user demand for this feature to the
extent that we would trade a smaller catalogue, be able to charge a higher
price or be willing to accept a lower margin.

We also do not offer the possibility to use our service with any media
player. This is in large part because the content is not available on those
terms from the people who sell it to us. That's not a technical issue which
W3C can do anything about. It's a business decision on the part of those
vendors. We make it clear to potential users which devices support the
service before they sign up by listing devices and PC system requirements
on our website and getting TV manufacturers to put "Netflix" badges in
their marketing materials.

> You're right, if not doing this way, you would be forcing to use the web
browser to see the content... If you've definitelly downloaded the media
file, why you must be forced to use a specific viewer? It doesn't make
sense and goes against portability and users rights, it's the same
situation about using closed specifications, your data is tied to a
specific software. That's not fair.

Again, I'm most interested in scenarios where you have not
"definitely downloaded the media file". You are accessing a service which
has particular terms and conditions to which you must agree in order to use
the service. The user doesn't have a right to use the service in a way that
is inconsistent with the terms to which they have agreed, unless those
terms are so egregious as to fall foul of some law.

...Mark

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  Please take this discussion to a more appropriate forum such as
> http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/ ****
>
> ** **
>
> /paulc****
>
> HTML WG co-chair****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada****
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3****
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Brendan Aragorn [mailto:gloppius@yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2013 12:51 AM
> *To:* public-html-media@w3.org
> *Subject:* EME****
>
> ** **
>
> Having noticed concerns from the free software community, it seems
> mandatory to an open web that the API must mandate that all CDMs be
> unconditionally cross-platform.  By this I mean that in order to ensure
> that those who chose to use the "premium content providers" products must
> be able to on any Operating system with aworking HTML5 Browser.  In simpler
> terms the CDMs must be mandated as OS/Browser independent.  This allows the
> CDMs to be proprietary, while forceing any group using them to offer their
> content to all internet users, as is already mandated by current W3C
> standards.  The APIs will be written so that no platform specific CDM will
> function.****
>
> ** **
>
> Brendan Aragorn****
>