- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 20:25:00 -0700
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Jul 6, 2013, at 2:59 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> Exactly. That's why finding better alternatives is not a valid argument. >> The debate here is not about DRM being bad or good. The debate is >> whether this should be a W3C standard or not. > > And, from what we've been told, that was never debated at all, and won't > be. Should the web be restricted to media that is unprotected, or not? That's a debatable point, for sure. I think that is a poor choice, in that it relegates the web to only referencing what the owners feel is 'low value' content. You might disagree (you probably do). But the W3C has a long struggle with 'walled gardens' and other competitive issues, so the answer is by no means obvious. If we could keep our principles pure and the high-value content web-accessible, we'd all be happy; but we don't currently see how to do that. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 03:25:27 UTC