W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Unrestricted publishing in EME? Re: DRM, EDE, CDM, W3C and the TAG:

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:43:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CANXqsRJUUsey=LkDsUS1kQtiFuR-BCA340NG+_09NYKH=U5qyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
> On 2013-10 -28, at 09:25, Eric J. Bowman wrote:
>> Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>> What bugs me the most about this entire debate, is W3C's insistence
>> that declaring DRM "in scope" has nothing to do with building a DRM
>> system, and that EME is only an idea.
> In scope means it is up for discussion.

The HTML WG Chairs appear to interpret it differently: That whether or
not to have DRM is not up for discussion at the WG.
(E.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Jul/0007.html
; no endorsement from me for the message being replied to implied.)

The notion that the "in scope" declaration is no endorsement of the
EME work is bogus for all practical purposes, of course, even if it
might be correct under the Process document.

>> Or any other number of potential horror stories, like the fact I can't
>> read an e-book if I travel out of my home country -- and then have to
>> re-download said content on my return.  Keeping such shenanigans out of
>> HTML entirely, seems the prudent way forward to me.
> Can we require of EME systems that e.g. they don't have access to location
> or the network, they just juggle keys?

It's not an EME CDM that enforces territorial restrictions. A more
likely design is that the server does geo-IP lookups.

> Could we require as policy that it the DRM system is not allowed to call home

It seems unlikely that DRMs whose design involves downloading an
individualization blackbox from the DRM vendor would be redesigned not
to do that just because the W3C said that phoning home is not cool.

> I put the subject in scope for discussion.
> There is discussion happening.
> I'd like to see some attempt to make a fairer DRM system.

The HTML WG is treating designing a DRM system as being *out of
scope*. (No disagreement with keeping the DRM system out of scope
implied; just that putting DRM "in scope" does not put us on track to
a new DRM system of any kind, fairer or not, emerging.)

> Let's stop assuming that a DRM system has to be like the ones we have now.

Why should we stop assuming that when EME is designed to be a perfect
fit for an existing system owned by one of the proposers and used by
another? (PlayReady or at least the Netflix-relevant subset thereof.)

Henri Sivonen
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 15:44:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:59 UTC