Re: Clarification

On 2013/05/13 22:50, Mark Watson wrote:

> Again, it's up to UA implementors, but some possible ways
> a UA could provide support for a given CDM might be:
> - the CDM is integrated directly into the UA and ships with the UA 
> executable
> - the CDM is implemented in the platform and the UA uses public
> platform APIs to access it
> - the CDM is a separately downloadable software module that the UA
> vendor has integrated with and vetted. The UA will only load and
> execute it if it passes some kind of code integrity check.


I am wondering if this isn't a method of providing DRM mostly for those 
who can afford it. Indeed, I doubt that I will have access to a CDM that 
would be included or even vetted by any UA (please let me know if I am 
missing something here). If so, my media could not profit from the same 
level of restriction as those of Netflix for example simply because my 
CDM is either not bundled with the UA and not vetted either.

In short, this appears to favour content distributed by companies who 
can spend.



> Fair enough. So do you agree, then, that putting DRM into the hands of
> the UA vendors - who clearly have such a history - is better than
> proprietary plugins or proliferation of native apps ?


I'm only answering for myself, but no.

The trust that users of Free/Open software have exists because the 
source code is available. The problem with non-free/open is the lack of 
control by the user of her computing. If UA vendors included closed 
code, then these same users can no longer trust their UA as they would 
no longer be free/open.

For other users the issues may not be the same, though the question will 
remain as to: Which UAs will be able to see the source code of which 
CDMs ?  I'm not sure all thise contributes to the W3C's main goals.


-- 
Emmanuel Revah

Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 08:33:28 UTC