W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:47:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBRW2Wmzw2FLW=vsVw47+FHDEQXB9qg8n6boUXovLS30w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: john@netpurgatory.com, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>
> wrote:
>>> Which part is baloney?  The part where deaf people get to enjoy
>>> Hamlet, or the part where English professors get to critique it?
>>>
>>>
>>> the part where DRM/content protection is equated with intentionally
>>> denying access to impaired users
>>>
>>>
>>> the argument ian is making is akin to saying that use of https is
>>> intentionally denying access to hackers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Other than disagreeing with your use of the word hacker, isn't that
>> exactly why most people use https?
>
>
> sorry, wrong analogy on my part, i should have said denying access to
> impaired users;
>
> the point is that DRM/CP has nothing to do with content access with respect
> to impaired users

Hixie's analogy was that inaccessible tools are to disabled users as
DRM is to legal-but-unlicensed users.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 22:48:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:45 GMT