[whatwg] HTML 5 : The Youtube response
marques at displague.com
Wed Jun 30 11:27:17 PDT 2010
What is the problem with #3? My recent emails on this list concern #3.
I know that anything that has been seen or heard can be recorded,
replayed, and redistributed by illegitimate parties but that doesn't
mean content protection is silly. Content providers have a right to
determine who, how, and when their videos can be accessed.
For pay-per-video services I would think a watermark + sue policy for
files distributed over HTML5/HTTP could handle content protection as
well as any flash based solution.
For pay-per-minute or pay-per-byte services I believe the HTTP and/or
HTML5 specification needs some minor changes to allow the server to
dictate the amount of data the UA should attempt to fetch from an open
and standard file over an open and standard protocol.
The user is being charged for access to the content in some granular
fashion so the ability to constrain fetches would allow these service
providers to make sure that first parties have paid for the content
they are receiving without sending them and charging them for more
content than they wish.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:35 AM, schalk <schalk at ossreleasefeed.com> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> Has anyone/everyone read the blog entry on Youtube’s blog
>> (http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html) regarding their
>> feeling about HTML5 video and why they still feel that Flash for video is the
>> preferred choice? I must say I do share some of their points. My question is,
>> what work is being done to remedy these points at the moment?
> So, for a quick recap, their problems are:
> 1. Standard video format
> 2. Robust video streaming
> 3. Content Protection
> 4. Encapsulation + embedding
> 5. Fullscreen video
> 6. Camera and Microphone access
> The blog itself successfully covers the current responses to 1, 2, 5,
> and 6. #3 is a different story; it doesn't appear that anyone in this
> space is working on that or intends to. And I'm happy with that. #4
> is kind of silly - flash embedding doesn't protect anyone's private
> data - the plugin can do plenty of malicious stuff if it wants to.
> Spreading videos by embedding <script> tags would be equally safe. I
> think people just don't realize that fact. In any case, embedding
> videos via <iframe sandbox=allow-scripts> should work fine, once more
> browsers support it.
More information about the whatwg