[whatwg] More YouTube response

Lachlan Hunt lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Fri Jul 2 05:50:50 PDT 2010

On 2010-07-02 13:56, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 02.07.2010 13:38, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:13:00 +0200, Shane Fagan
>> <shanepatrickfagan at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>> Well this isnt really a list where we should talk about the dos and
>>> donts of web content distribution. DRM content can be embedded in the
>>> video tag and decoded using installable plugins so its not really an
>>> issue for this list I dont think. We cant dictate how the specs are used
>>> so try to keep the conversation technology neutral.
>> Whether playing video requires a plugin is very much an issue for this
>> list, I think. What Henri explained -- not having lock-in to a
>> particular platform because of proprietary plugins -- is a large part of
>> the reason why we have <video> in the first place.
> That may be true.
> But there's nothing in the spec that actually disallows adding support
> for plugin-based DRM, right? (Just clarifying)

Correct. Vendors can theoretically implement any codec or container they 
like, with any features or limitations they like.

MP4 already has various DRM schemes in use.  Apple, for example, could 
support FairPlay protected videos, though the use of such content with 
<video> would effectively be limited to within iTunes.

Even Matroska has elements that can be used for general purpose 
encryption and DRM purposes, though these features were not included 
within WebM.  But theoretically, those features could be added and 
implemented with some agreed upon encryption scheme.

I would still, however, argue against anything of the sort being added 
to WebM because DRM doesn't do anything to protect content, but is 
rather used as a way for content providers to control the market by 
blocking unwanted innovation and competition that they don't like, 
including open source software.

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software

More information about the whatwg mailing list