On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Marques Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > What is the problem with #3? My recent emails on this list concern #3. > > I know that anything that has been seen or heard can be recorded, > replayed, and redistributed by illegitimate parties but that doesn't > mean content protection is silly. Content providers have a right to > determine who, how, and when their videos can be accessed. > > For pay-per-video services I would think a watermark + sue policy for > files distributed over HTML5/HTTP could handle content protection as > well as any flash based solution.
Indeed, but that can be done without HTML helping in any way. > For pay-per-minute or pay-per-byte services I believe the HTTP and/or > HTML5 specification needs some minor changes to allow the server to > dictate the amount of data the UA should attempt to fetch from an open > and standard file over an open and standard protocol. The server can throttle itself by itself. Any restrictions in the markup can be trivially bypassed. > The user is being charged for access to the content in some granular > fashion so the ability to constrain fetches would allow these service > providers to make sure that first parties have paid for the content > they are receiving without sending them and charging them for more > content than they wish. HTML can't help with that without losing openness, which isn't worth the benefit. ~TJ
