Re: Watermarking [Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Duncan Bayne <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014, at 04:38 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> > Who is that question to ? I certainly have no idea of the answer to that
> > except that watermaking alone doesn't mean the requirements of any of our
> > existing content licenses.
> ... which was sort of my point.  Discussion of watermarking etc. is
> missing the *underlying* cause of the friction, which is that (as I
> understand it) those licenses positively *require* non-user-modifiable
> client components.
> Actually, that's an assumption on my part.
> Is it possible for you to post the relevant sections of the content
> licenses to the list?

There are many such contracts and they are confidential, so unfortunately
I can't post them.

>  It doesn't make sense to discuss potential
> solutions to requirements if those requirements aren't clear.

As far as I understand, the way things work today is that it is the DRM
vendors who take on the task of creating solutions that meet the
requirements of the studios and of getting buy-in from the studios that
their solutions do indeed meet the requirements. You can look, for example,
at the PlayReady robustness rules for an example of the result:

Realistically, I don't think you will get studio requirements posted
publicly, but that's not a question for me.

So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that meet
studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is provide a
clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element. What
we're not trying to do is standardize a solution to the studio
requirements. That would be rather ambitious, I feel.


> --
> Duncan Bayne
> ph: +61 420817082 | web: | skype:
> duncan_bayne
> I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
> urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 00:56:27 UTC