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

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

I understand your position - caught in the middle - but you're asking us
as a group to propose technical solutions to requirements that we are
prohibited from reading.  Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? 
Likewise, you're asking the W3C to compromise their Open Web principles
on behalf of those same secret requirements.

A bit of transparency here would be nice.

Can we at least get a written summary of requirements from the
stakeholders?  I.e. not Netflix, Apple etc. but the people whose
licensing terms are forcing this issue?
 
> Realistically, I don't think you will get studio requirements posted
> publicly, but that's not a question for me.

Okay, for whom *is* it a question then?  It angers me that the W3C might
be tasked with satisfying secret requirements, especially to the
detriment of Open Web principles.

> 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.

What we (meaning opponents of EME) are trying to do is propose
alternative technical solutions that would satisfy both the Open Web
principles, *and* the requirements of the content owners.  As a first
step, I'm suggesting that we hear what those latter requirements are
from the horse's mouth.

-- 
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | 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 01:05:31 UTC