RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

cobaco wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, Sat, 2013/07/06, John Foliot wrote:
> > What *you* might lose is the idea that somehow the W3C is obligated
> to
> > serve your needs as a citizen and user of the internet. Why you
> believe
> > you have this right today I do not know, perhaps because the W3C has
> > been as open and accommodating to the public and public feedback as
> they
> > have been all these years.
> 
> wow, just wow, re-read what you've written here

I know what I wrote. The question remains, why do you believe that the W3C
is *obligated* to do what you demand? That is a specific question that
requires a specific answer. 

The fact that the W3C operates with the interest of the general public in
mind is well documented, and the Mission and Goals of the W3C are intended
clearly to benefit the global population that uses the World Wide Web. Their
Patent Policy, the Process Document, and the historical output of the W3C
all stands as testament to those aspirations. Do you believe that because
they have historically stated such goals and mission that you are now
empowered to dictate to the W3C how it must operate? That you get to decide
what the consortium can and cannot work on? Why?



> > What this means for *your* definition of the "Open Web" of course
> will
> > also remain to be seen. Clearly you will be disappointed, frustrated,
> > disenfranchised, etc., etc.
> 
> you're really showing your true colors here

My "true colors" is that of a pragmatist who understands what the word
Consortium means:

	"A consortium is an association of two or more individuals,
companies, organizations or governments (or any combination of these
entities) with the objective of participating in a common activity or
pooling their resources for achieving a common goal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium

I also understand what this means:

	"Organizations join W3C to drive the direction of core Web
technology and exchange ideas with industry and research leaders. Members
can find additional information on the Member site (Member-only)."
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership 


Your comments to this mailing list leave me to believe that you are of the
opinion that because you and others are opposed to a specific piece of work
that the W3C is working on today, work I might add that has already been
ruled "in scope" by the Director of the W3C, that you have the power to stop
that work dead in its tracks at the W3C, simply because a segment of the
population is unhappy with that work.

Your unhappiness is well documented and understood: I still do not
understand why you think that *you*, as a member of the public, should have
such influence and power that you can tell the paying membership of the
consortium what they can and cannot work on. I remain unclear why you
believe this to be true.


> 
> if not the interest of web citizens and web users who should the W3C
> serve?
> Corporate interests that want to divide the web between themselves,
> each
> with their own fiefdom where they have total control?

The consortium is comprised of businesses, academia, governments and other
interested parties who have made both a financial and "manpower" investment
in the W3C ecosystem, and who seek to work collaboratively, collectively, in
public, on issues of common concern and interest. Those same business
interests are also prepared to "give back" that effort to the global
community as Royalty Free work, that any and all can use if they so choose.
(But that none are obligated to use if they choose not to).

If these "evil" businesses wanted to carve up the web and divide it amongst
themselves, why would they even bother to be present here? I have repeatedly
said that work on technical specifications related to the web can happen
anywhere, and be done by anyone, and the W3C has ZERO control over that
reality. The fact that these companies choose to instead come here and do
that work publicly, inside of the W3C, using W3C process and governed by the
W3C Patent Policy is the answer to your question.

That does not mean however that the W3C must ensure that the entire
population down to the last man or woman must be "happy" with the work that
they do, nor even seek their permission or approval.


> 
> On the web corporations get no more control then individuals, everyone
> is
> equally able to add content, and equally unable to restrict
> distribution.

Uhm... not exactly. There are numerous ways of restricting the distribution
of content manifest on the web today, from pay-walls established by some
media outlets, to restrained access to content via "IP firewalls" (China,
North Korea, etc.), to DRM'ed entertainment content today delivered via
Flash or Silverlight. (Just last night I watched a NetFlix movie on my
laptop. I didn't try to save it, or to remix it, or share it with my
neighbor - all I did was watch the stream.)

None of that is controlled by the W3C, and all of it exists today on the
internet. 

There is nothing stopping, say North Korea, from implementing their own
closed 'internet' system, a system that could be completely shut off from
the rest of the world. One of the strongest reasons why global governments
continue to support a single internet however is that failing to do so would
have serious negative commercial impacts on their local economies. That does
not mean however that non-democratic governments can and do control content
in their regional localities, and outside of reasoned persuasion, the W3C
cannot stop that. 

Believing otherwise is simply naive. 
 


> That's the one characteristic that makes the web superior to every
> communication technology that came before. It's the complete and utter
> democratization of communication technology.

No, it is the ease-of-use of the technology that makes it so superior. The
cost of entry is nothing more than access to the global internet, a computer
that can generate text documents, and the ability to host content on a web
server. (I might also add that not everyone can gain access to the global
internet, nor find a way to host content on a web server).

Question: who did you vote for in the W3C? When and where did you do that
voting? If you are unhappy with the W3C leadership, how do you
democratically change that? Where is the democracy?



> I get that's a loss of control and power that the traditional media-
> monguls
> bemoan loudly.
> I get that's a level of control and power that the up and coming media
> giants like Apple and Google very much desire.
> I get that both those groups are trying their best to reestablish that
> control and power.

These companies are seeking ways to ensure that they can legally profit on
their investments. 

If you believe that profit and the Free Market system is flawed, then that
is a completely different conversation, and one likely not appropriate at
the W3C. Those "traditional Media moguls" are simply looking, like everyone
else, at how to take advantage of this new medium, technology in general,
and how to continue to create a revenue stream. That in-and-of-itself is no
more evil than organizations like the EFF trying to effect social change via
the internet. The fact that those goals will likely appear to be of cross
purposes I think everyone can agree - what I do not agree however is that
one is "superior" to the other. Further, on a truly open web, both parties
are free to act, and interact (or not) with each other under their terms.

You speak of democracy, yet you also insist that everyone does it your way,
the one true way, the "Open Web" (as *you* define it) way.


> 
> But that view is fundamentally incompatible with the view of the Web as
> the
> democratization of communication, which is the essence of the open web.

*IF* the W3C were a political party, then perhaps that might make sense in
this discussion. 

The W3C is not a political party. It is a consortium of paid members and
other volunteers with shared goals, working together to address those goals.
That consortium *does* listen to the public, *does* care about openness and
open standards, *does* believe in a certain leveling of the internet
landscape, but *does not* dance to your tune because you insist they do so.


> As such W3C should explicitly reject it.
> 
> @jeff: does W3C support Johns views?

Good question. 

I am simply looking at the W3C site, at how the W3C is organized, and basing
my observations on logic. I continue to believe that the W3C is as Open a
standards group as you will ever find, that the goals and aspirations of its
members, staff and contributors is relatively in line with your definition
of "open", but that there is also a component of commercial interests that
is part of the W3C that seems to be being ignored here. 

The fact that the Director has ruled this work in scope, is to me, telling.
The continued invitation to bring forth a better solution to the
problem-statement of the owners of Premium Content by Jeff, and others
inside of the W3C, suggests that these members' problem (Premium Content
owners) is being listened to at the consortium, and that the consortium is
doing what it set out to do ("...participating in a common activity or
pooling their resources for achieving a common goal."), and that those who
can only offer a "don't do anything" response are missing the bigger
picture.

That activity, that goal, is to *solve* the problem, not reject possible
solutions. Doing "nothing" is not a viable option. 

JF

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 00:28:22 UTC