W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Multipart response support

From: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:06:54 +0200
Message-Id: <3786F760-49BE-4A2E-9129-AF0F4EBE7BFF@hibo.no>
To: public-html@w3.org

Well, to me, the ability to include images as attachments first of  
all represents a means for ordinary people to achieve a certain  
degree of protection of their legal rights.

It won't affect the big corporations who have technical, financial  
and legal resources to protect their content anyway. Neither will it  
affect the technically skilled bad guys out there who will abuse  
their rights anyway. But it will reduce the total amount of abuse and  
that is a good thing, I think.

And please don't exxagerate the costs. Multipart response support is  
a quite modest extension where most of the work has been done already.


> not only is this completely the opposite of what HTML is about, it's
> impractical and useless... 'significant barrier' means it's not worth
> the trouble of achieving something half the world would be against
> anyway.
>
> hiding images from the transport streams just means you're raising the
> value of commercial screenshot software
>
> and you'll always have getright and wget to get the job done
>
>
> web developers need to deal with the fact that what you put on the
> web, is on the web... and if someone *wants* to (ab)use it and doesn't
> care for the copyright laws, they *will* do it.
>
>
> the video industry has a *lot* more money to waste on this and even
> they've been unsucsessful... and they reinvent the wheel every 5 years
> while ours have to work on old roads as well...
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 14:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 March 2007 14:07:15 GMT