- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:20:17 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/06/10 04:47, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > On 6/9/2013 2:20 PM, Joshua Gay wrote: [..] >> 1. Copyright violations (sharing, etc) are a threat to the model >> >> One reason the business model needs copy restrictions (aka content >> protection) is because a significant enough number of users will >> violate >> the copyright on the work. This means a lot of people (who otherwise >> would pay) aren't paying for a work. >> >> In the United States and in many other countries with strong >> democratic >> traditions, there are powerful laws and justice systems to enforce >> those >> laws around copyright. When violating those laws, a person is taking >> part in criminal behaviour. >> >> So, when the W3C does work that is to support a business model like >> this, they are also giving support to the assumption that a >> significant >> portion of the public are likely to take part in criminal behaviour. > > I think this statement is a little strong. Noone would say that a > company that provides house alarms assumes that a significant portion > of the public are likely to take part in criminal behavior. Rather, > they would say that a significant portion of the public has a desire > to protect their homes. The house alarm is used to warn/protect against people who are not authorised to enter the home whereas DRM is used against identified and authorised users. EME/DRM is more comparable to an alarm designed to protect home owners against their own guests. [...] >> I don't think that the W3C should help further or put its efforts >> toward >> helping a business model that is intent upon denying fair use, because >> I >> believe it is bad for individuals and it is bad for helping to promote >> the progress of science and useful arts. > > Just for clarity, W3C has embraced the notion that content protection > is a valid requirement. We have not embraced the notion that denying > fair use is a valid requirement. To the extent that we can find a > solution that provides content protection and also provides no > roadblock to fair use - that would be ideal. I read here "The need for content protection outweighs fair use denial (and control over users)". -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 13:20:45 UTC