On 01/03/2008, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is NOT to replace HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the flash > player.
It is! :-) > As far as the flash player goes, this FMS 3 requirement is only > about streaming MP4 container (h264/aac) into the flash player as detailed > in the bullet points of this article: > http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/08/what-just-happened-to-video-on-web_20.html The blog post of an Adobe employee is unlikely to make explicit the way the DRM in FMS is going to play out. Adobe does not want to raise awareness of its DRM capabilities. > You will still be able to use progressive download for MP4 and flv video > files into flash. In fact, stuff I've made does it every day. Today you can't use progressive download for the iPlayer Flash video, but the DRM is not _yet_ (afaik) turned on for iPlayer. Will it be turned on? > Of course, Adobe may turn off HTTP support by releasing a version of the > Flash Player that requires a handshake with their proprietary server before > it delivers video, but I'm sure they realise that would be incredibly stupid > as the ubiquity of the flash player is in a large part down to the low > barrier it has on delivering video content. I agree that Adobe is unlikely to remove the HTTP functionality, but that doesn't mean that the BBC and other FMS users will make use of that functionality - the BBC already doesn't - and Adobe are already providing them with DRM features that they are not yet using. > Adobe Media player article is, clearly, correct since it is written by > people who know about the product they're talking about. > So beef about that all you like. The phrase, > > protected download-and-play sounds like classic DRM to me. > > Adobe's rich history of document protection technology AKA: Adobe's on going attempts at DRM > > Adobe Media Player plans to offer > > content publishers a range of protection options, including streaming > > encryption, content integrity protection and identity-based > > protection. "Streaming encryption" is about "replacing HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the flash player." > But don't spread misinformation that supports your insistence on focussing > on what flash player isn't, rather than what flash player is. > In fact, I think you can replace "flash player" in the above sentence with > almost any tech for some of the conversations on this list. > > I make stuff people use. I don't sit around waiting for other folks to make > stuff so I can tell them why they're wrong to make it that way and this kind > of grandstanding drives me nuts Your failure to acknowledge the social problem of DRM - the BBC acknowledges DRM but whines "we can't help it, its not our fault" - and your lack of shame at being called on promoting it marks you out as non-serious in my opinion. -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
