Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

2012/3/5 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:19:33 -0000, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>  There is currently a de facto requirement that CDMs be closed-source
>>> and/or royalty-encumbered.
>>>
>>
>> *some* CDMs... some != all
>>
>
> *All* CMDs required for DRMed video. All. ClearKey is just a red herring.
>
> I think it's already been said by people representing video
> services/distributors that they are not interested in open-source/clearkey
> CDMs.
>

oh? where? I represent a commercial video distributor (Cox), and Cox is
certainly interested in open-source/clearkey CDMs, but as I have repeatedly
stated, this is not a decision open to video distributors.. you are simply
barking up the wrong tree


>
> Clearly, if there was *at least one* open-source non-encumbered CDM
> acceptable by whoever-controls-majority-of-**commercial-video, we
> wouldn't even need to other CDMs, and that ideal CDM could be just baked
> into the spec.


if by "whoever-controls-majority-of-commercial-video" you really mean the
MPAA and their counterparts in other regions, then perhaps what you suggest
may be possible; but the MPAA is not a W3C member and is not participating
in this discussion, so its a little pointless to continue making that
argument here don't you think?

as far as Cox (as a commercial video distributor) is concerned, we will use
whatever CDM or equivalent (including proprietary plugins if necessary) to
deliver DRM/CP encumbered content of the Web that is required by the
content owners (of which Cox is not one) from whom Cox obtains its content

to this end, we view the current proposal as a significant step forward in
ease of use and interoperability (both for end users and browser vendors)