W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-restrictedmedia@w3.org > January 2014

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

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:42:57 -0500
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CA6CA8E8-ED33-4B19-AB3E-CADDD3E78339@3roundstones.com>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
On Jan 13, 2014, at 21:51, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> On 1/13/2014 7:55 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> 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: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/
>> 
>> Realistically, I don't think you will get studio requirements posted publicly, but that's not a question for me.
> 
> Do you know anyone that I could ask - in terms of getting these requirements posted publicly?
> 
> If not, do you know anyone who probably knows someone else that I could ask?


I like this line of thinking.  It is very reasonable IMO to expose the core license *types* to the group, without necessarily exposing all the detailed language of the licenses themselves.

What are the core requirements of the content holders as it relates to distribution?  What are their primary concerns?  Without exploring those concepts, any talk of EME or non-user-modifiable content is putting design before requirements.

Thanks to Duncan for raising this and for Jeff for following up.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood


Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 14:43:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:42 UTC