For starters, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0178.html .
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote: > A) Provide a DRM mechanism in HTML5 which keeps them happy. (How > breakable or not it actually is, is a different question.) Have the > video delivered that way. EME assumes multiple Key Systems, so EME isn't a fully contained one mechanism. It's a common part of several intentionally mutually incompatible mechanisms. (Incompatible on the key initialization level that is. They'll be intentionally compatible on the level of the large files that end up on content delivery networks.) > B) Have all the commercial video content be only available via Flash, > proprietary plugins or proprietary mobile apps, thereby saying "there > are some things the open web just can't provide for you - you need to go > closed for that". I don't think we have this option. Microsoft and Google have editors on the EME spec. So this option looks more like: Have Hollywood movies available with good performance and without additional installs in IE and Chrome and *for the time being* available via Silverlight in Firefox on Windows and Mac (i.e. with additional installations, updates and performance and stability troubles and only as long as Microsoft bothers to keep Silverlight working and available). > C) Hope the economic analysis is wrong and that if we kill the idea of > DRM in HTML5, this content will appear un-DRMed in HTML5 form anyway > because it's just easier for them and the ease outweighs the lack of DRM. > > My concern is that if we go for C), we'll get B), and B) might be worse > than A). Indeed. And as noted above, B is likely to be worse than how you phrased it. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
