On 2014-05-15 10:07, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/14/14, 8:23 PM, Jim wrote:
What exactly has been negotiated?
Some obvious bits that jumped out at me:
* The CDM not having unmediated access to the network, the hard drive,
or any other part of the user's computer.
* The CDM being available on Linux.
* The CDM not being able to track users across sites.
How does it meet the demands by content owners for robust DRM, while
allowing the user to sandbox the CDM, and also not being tivoized which
is not an option on Linux?
Have Netflix got agreement to support such a weak CDM for HD content?
What about other distributors? Is Mozilla's EME implementation even
viable?
I personally do not know the answers to these questions, nor your
questions about content owners.
The basis for Mozilla's decision, that "Mozilla has little choice but to
implement EME as well so our users can continue to access all content
they want to enjoy." is baseless if Netflix and other popular
distributors do not support the proposed sandboxed Adobe CDM. Can
someone clarify this point?
The EME DRM proponents rejected sandboxing at the W3C discussions. Has
anything changed?
I haven't been following the EME spec very closely, so I'm not sure
what sandboxing was rejected... The spec _is_ written in a way that
technically allows the CDM to be sandboxed and rely on the browser for
getting the data.
Sure, the EME keeps the details of the CDM and such sandboxing outside
its scope, an intentional decision by the W3C working group. Sandboxing
was raised.
Jim
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
