- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:41:08 +0200
- To: "GAUSMAN, PAUL" <pg2483@att.com>, "Mo McRoberts" <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>, "Clarke Stevens" <C.Stevens@cablelabs.com>
- Cc: "silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Robert Pearson" <robert.pearson@ami.ca>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:27:51 +0200, Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@cablelabs.com> wrote: > Yes, this is the general consensus. We need to be able to use DRM and > provide some common parameters, but there is no will to specify any > specific DRM. Indeed, I think there is a general understanding that any system which requires a particular specific DRM will be a problem. cheers > This will be the topic of our first MPTF morning session at the F2F > meeting next Thursday. > > -Clarke > > On 9/16/11 10:53 AM, "GAUSMAN, PAUL" <pg2483@att.com> wrote: > >> I think that Web and TV requirements should be agnostic to DRM types and >> accommodating of them, as an option. >> >> Thanks! >> -Paul >> >> Q me >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts >> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:43 AM >> To: Charles McCathieNevile >> Cc: silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com; Robert Pearson; public-web-and-tv@w3.org >> Subject: Re: DRM / copy protection Re: Web and TV Accessibility >> >> >> On 16 Sep 2011, at 08:08, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >>>> Understanding that copyright metadata would be attached to the file, >>>> but that is likely not a concern for someone stealing it. >>> >>> True - although in many cases it *is* sufficient. A surprising amount >>> can >>> be achieved with information and goodwill, although it is important to >>> understand the limits... >> >> I'd be inclined to agree, on the whole. >> >> Being pragmatic about this, if the aim were to be "a copy-protection >> system that was both freely-implementable yet broadly effective" (which >> I >> believe it should be - because otherwise, by definition, it's something >> which is in the hands of the few, and so runs counter to the principles >> of the Web and most software which interacts with it), then technical >> measures are not beyond the bounds of possibility - I'd be wary of >> discounting the effectiveness of the mainstream browsers paying >> attention >> to a "do not copy" flag. >> >> The nub is that any DRM system, unless it operates within the context of >> a closed system, involves handing both the keys and the content >> protected >> by those keys to a user who does, as far as the system is concerned, >> have >> legitimate access to both. If that user subsequently decides to make use >> of the material they've been handed to make illicit copies, and is >> technically able to do so, then they will. >> >> Much of the work around copy-protection has been predicated upon "we're >> going to use crypto to protect our content, so put as much effort as >> possible into keeping the keys from people we don't want to have them"; >> given that (for the difficult cases people put in lots of effort into >> trying to solve) you don't know who you don't want to have the keys >> until >> after they've already obtained them, this is a logical failure. >> >> However, if you go back to the basics of what it's actually *for*, but >> accept the reality that in handing somebody both a lock and a key, there >> will be people capable of inserting the key into the lock and turning >> it, >> then you're left with a problem-space of "how can a copy-protection >> scheme be implemented which puts illicit copying beyond the effort >> threshold of the majority, but still allows the maximum number of >> legitimate users to enjoy the material?". A solution to that of "a >> 'please don't copy this' flag which Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera, >> Firefox, and Safari all honour" satisfies that aim, possibly in >> combination with things like time/session-dependent identifiers and so >> forth. Sure, the really determined individuals will evade it, but that's >> no different to any other scheme. >> >> Given that, the real question is less about whether the W3C or this >> group >> in particular would support it, but whether Microsoft, Google, Apple, >> Mozilla and Opera would agree to implement it (and subsequently, whether >> rights-holders could be convinced that it was no worse from their >> perspective than any other mechanism, and permit distributors to make >> use >> of it). >> >> M. >> >> -- >> Mo McRoberts - Data Analyst - Digital Public Space, >> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA, >> Room 7066, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ, >> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E >> >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain >> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically >> stated. >> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. >> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in >> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. >> Further communication will signify your consent to this. >> >> >> -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Sunday, 18 September 2011 12:41:53 UTC