W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Oppose DRM ! Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Smithpeters, Craig (CCI-Atlanta) <Craig.Smithpeters@cox.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:17:03 -0500
To: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
CC: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "<public-html-admin@w3.org>" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD24B238.5C294%craig.smithpeters@cox.com>

Craig Smithpeters
Cox Communications
office: +1-404-269-8263

On 1/22/13 8:12 PM, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

>The question at hand is not approving the spec, but to approve publishing
>the First Public Working Draft. The purpose of FPWD is to "signal to the
>community to begin reviewing the document." Public review is a
>cornerstone of our open process.
>Based on the rich discussion from the CfC, it seems the community is
>ready for such a review. It would be great if we could focus the
>discussion on the specification particulars to understand in what cases
>changes can be made to fix issues and in what cases wholesale alternative
>proposals can be presented.
>The alternative to publishing FPWD would likely be for this work to
>continue without such public review, which benefits no one.
>So, I think all parties benefit by publishing FPWD and getting all the
>alternatives on the table.
>On Jan 22, 2013, at 3:03 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>> Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>>> As discussed here some time ago the only purpose of this specification
>>> is to enable DRM, which is Defective by Design
>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
>> I well appreciate that this is a politically charged issue, but there
>>is a
>> clear business need for *something* by more than one W3C stake-holder
>> involved in this discussion. Not everyone will agree with the opinions
>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ - a politically motivated
>>organization -
>> and to drive this kind of web specification outside of the W3C is
>> counter-productive to the larger goal of the work we are doing here.
>> I urge others to read the following statement from the Daisy Consortium:
>> ting_content.html
>> Suggesting that content owners do not have a right to control the
>> distribution of their intellectual property may not fit with the
>> views of some, but to ignore those legitimate business requirements is
>> to burying your head in the sand.
>> If you are concerned that this FPWD has technical holes, or you have an
>> alternative idea to satisfy that requirement, I urge you and others to
>> either a) provide further details on the technical problems, or b) start
>> your own alternative extension specification that meets the use-case
>> requirements. Throwing up our collective hands and declaring "DRM is
>> is not the answer.
>> Cheers!
>> JF
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 02:17:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:32 UTC