link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2...
Well, as I say, the actual requirements that lead to the proposal of EME would be a start. This is how it looks to those who don't agree that EME is a good fit with the Open Web:
- 'big content' has certain requirements relating to preventing users copying data streams
- they won't make those requirements public (as you've said, the agreements are confidential)
- their licensees propose a technical solution that is unacceptable to many others because it necessitates the use of non-user-modifiable client components
- all proposed alternatives (e.g. FOSS DRM, server-side watermarking, client-side watermarking, no DRM at all) are shot down as being either too expensive or inadequate to the (secret) requirements
In a normal software project, I'd take an apparently insoluble conflict (the requirement for non-user-modifiable client components) to mean that we have done a poor job of determining requirements.
Hence my request for either a real user to talk to (e.g. an MPAA rep) or the actual requirements docs, which you've told me are confidential.
And that sets off my spidey-senses ... something is not quite right here.