Re: Dear EFF: Please don't pick the wrong fight

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote:

> 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*.

As I said in another post, EME could be used to interface with a
module that does client-side individual watermarking. Not that I think
that's an especially good idea.

...Mark
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
> http://hsivonen.fi/
>

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 14:07:36 UTC