- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:54:42 +0300
- To: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:56 PM, John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> wrote: > It is related to EME specifically. The "content protection in scope" > statement is *not* exclusive to DRM. As Jeff has said, "content > protection" is not synonymous with DRM. Other techniques such as > watermarking, which do not require patented, non-interoperable, > proprietary software on Web users' computers, fall under that category > by their definition as well. The use of watermarking also wouldn't involve any changes to the specs describing browser behavior, so in the context of the charter of the HTML WG interpreting "content protection" that is "in scope" to mean watermarking makes no sense technically. That is, putting watermarking "in scope" for the HTML WG would not imply any changes to any HTML specs. As for defining a watermarking technique to be applied to video data, the HTML WG seems like a totally wrong venue in terms of available expertise. So yeah, TimBL ruled DRM to be in scope. Yet, the HTML WG isn't actually defining DRM but carefully treating the definition of DRM (apart from its high-level networking architecture) as being *out of scope*. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@hsivonen.fi http://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 08:55:09 UTC