Re:What I Love about Mozilla
by makomk on Monday October 07, 2013 @05:27AM
(#6507209)
Look, I've read the entire proposal, and it's obviously DRM for HTML5 video. It has specific error codes for standard DRM restrictions like "A hardware configuration change caused a content protection error" and "There is no available output device with the required characteristics for the content protection system" (no HDCP, no playback) and "The Key System could not be installed or updated".
It's designed to support a license server, an (unspecified, naturally) mechanism for the CDM to decrypt keys from the license server and store them internally, a (CDM-specific, i.e. unspecified) mechanism for the CDM to attest that it's deleted keys, and all the other parts of DRM.
The BBC have demanded that HTML5 EME be robust enough DRM that accessing content through unauthorised software is a criminal offense here in the UK, and the W3C spent some time on that too (though it's not mentioned in the standard itself).
It's basically a way of allowing DRM-based sites to claim to be 100% standards-based. It doesn't even provide much interoperability benefit over every DRM provider writing their own DRM API for HTML5 video; sites still need a bunch of DRM-scheme-specific glue code between the web server and license server, and the same with CDM and browser vendors on the client end. They don't even standardize the codecs and containers used - there's a couple of optional, non-normative container encryption schemes, but DRM schemes don't have to support either, so sites may (and probably will) have to encode and store multiple copies of each video to support different DRM schemes. It's less fucking standardised and interorperable than satellite pay TV!
It's designed to support a license server, an (unspecified, naturally) mechanism for the CDM to decrypt keys from the license server and store them internally, a (CDM-specific, i.e. unspecified) mechanism for the CDM to attest that it's deleted keys, and all the other parts of DRM.
The BBC have demanded that HTML5 EME be robust enough DRM that accessing content through unauthorised software is a criminal offense here in the UK, and the W3C spent some time on that too (though it's not mentioned in the standard itself).
It's basically a way of allowing DRM-based sites to claim to be 100% standards-based. It doesn't even provide much interoperability benefit over every DRM provider writing their own DRM API for HTML5 video; sites still need a bunch of DRM-scheme-specific glue code between the web server and license server, and the same with CDM and browser vendors on the client end. They don't even standardize the codecs and containers used - there's a couple of optional, non-normative container encryption schemes, but DRM schemes don't have to support either, so sites may (and probably will) have to encode and store multiple copies of each video to support different DRM schemes. It's less fucking standardised and interorperable than satellite pay TV!