On 2014/01/13 17:15, Mark Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Emmanuel Revah <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2014/01/11 23:27, Mark Watson wrote:
[...]
There are content owners who require such a 'black box' today and
the
reach of their content is limited to platforms that support that
capability today. So, (legal) access to that content is not
available
on some platforms today. That situation will continue, based on
the
economics, as you say, irrespective of what W3C does. W3C
recommendations are not what cause that effect, now or in the
future.
Does this mean that the values/standards endorsed by the W3C should
be changed to reflect what is happening on the market rather than be
a set of standards with its own principles and goals ?
No, I didn't say that.
Then I have no idea what you were trying to say.
You say that the web will use DRM regardless of what the W3C does. I get
that and I'm not arguing that (I don't think anyone is).
If you are not using that statement as a reason for the W3C to adjust
their values to what the web does then what are you saying by this ?
This is a sincere question, I've seen this argument many times before on
this list "The web will use DRM regardless of W3C recommendations".
That's certainly very true, but how does this justify that DRM should be
in context of W3C recommendations ? Or how is this statement supposed
to be relevant ?
With EME we're hoping to make it *easier* to support more
platforms,
so if anything EME will have the opposite effect.
At best this will change nothing at all in terms of supported
platforms. At worst, CDMs could be used to restrict access content
to specific platforms.
For example, a hardware based CDM built-in to the next iphone could
be used to ensure access to certain content is only possible using
that specific device. Hardware CDMs are in the works, so how does
EME ensure "the opposite effect" ?
The publisher will have the possibility of deciding which platforms
may access their content. This decision could be made based on
various motivations that may range from "Evil Empire" to "low
budget" as using multiple CDMs, to provide access to more platforms,
*will* cost more.
The whole point of DRM is to attest to the provider that the content
is being consumed by a player with certain properties (specifically
robustness). Those properties obviously vary by platform, so yes, all
DRM gives the provider some control over which players on which
platforms can play the content. Specifically, to ensure the player has
the robustness properties required by the content license.
I don't see what EME has to do with this point. It is just a
well-known property of DRM independent of whether the DRM is accessed
through EME or some other way.
It is hard for me to follow how this is a reply to what I wrote.
--
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com
