On 2010-07-02 13:56, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 02.07.2010 13:38, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:13:00 +0200, Shane Fagan
<[email protected]> wrote:
Well this isnt really a list where we should talk about the dos and
donts of web content distribution. DRM content can be embedded in the
video tag and decoded using installable plugins so its not really an
issue for this list I dont think. We cant dictate how the specs are used
so try to keep the conversation technology neutral.
Whether playing video requires a plugin is very much an issue for this
list, I think. What Henri explained -- not having lock-in to a
particular platform because of proprietary plugins -- is a large part of
the reason why we have <video> in the first place.
That may be true.
But there's nothing in the spec that actually disallows adding support
for plugin-based DRM, right? (Just clarifying)
Correct. Vendors can theoretically implement any codec or container they
like, with any features or limitations they like.
MP4 already has various DRM schemes in use. Apple, for example, could
support FairPlay protected videos, though the use of such content with
<video> would effectively be limited to within iTunes.
Even Matroska has elements that can be used for general purpose
encryption and DRM purposes, though these features were not included
within WebM. But theoretically, those features could be added and
implemented with some agreed upon encryption scheme.
I would still, however, argue against anything of the sort being added
to WebM because DRM doesn't do anything to protect content, but is
rather used as a way for content providers to control the market by
blocking unwanted innovation and competition that they don't like,
including open source software.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
