RE: Title and description of this group may mislead.

> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:05:28 +0000
> From: gerv@mozilla.org
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Title and description of this group may mislead.
> 
> On 14/03/13 20:37, Fred Andrews wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:38:59 +0000
> >> From: gerv@mozilla.org
> >> To: fredandw@live.com
> >> CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Title and description of this group may mislead.
> >>
> >> On 14/03/13 01:02, Fred Andrews wrote:
> >> > There is no dispute that sever owners have a right to limit access
> 
> BTW, the title of this group doesn't contain the word "access".

The description mentions the word 'access', see
http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/

"The Restricted Media CG will discuss and analyze methods of
restricting 
ACCESS to or use of Web media, and their implementation
on the open Web."

> >> Perhaps you could enumerate them, to illuminate the discussion?
> >>
> >> Do you mean "usernames and passwords"?
> > 
> > Yes, usernames and passwords are one approach.
> 
> Usernames and passwords solve an entirely different problem from the one
> DRM purports to solve.

I agree, and that is my point.  There are lots of methods to 
'restrict access' that are unencumbered and just not of relevance
to this group.

> > There would appear to be no need to 'enumerate' them as
> > the existence of just one unencumbered solution is adequate
> > to be able to prove that access control can be solved with
> > unencumbered solutions.
> 
> "Access control" is a broad term. The problem this technology is
> purporting to solve is not the same as the problem of "only the right
> person logging into a website".

Again, I agree, but this seems to only support my position?

> >> > I suggest that the only disputed technology is 'strong DRM' and that
> >> > the title and purpose of this group should reflect this.
> >>
> >> How would you distinguish "strong DRM" from "weak DRM", and determine
> >> what sort falls into what category?
> > 
> > I did not mention the term 'weak DRM', but it might be useful to
> > define it as ineffective DRM.
> 
> If you want to use "ineffective" as the antonym, presumably I can
> reasonably rephrase what you said as:
> 
> > I suggest that the only disputed technology is 'effective DRM'
> 
> ? When put like that, it rather reduces back to the only disputed
> technology being "DRM".

Yes, that's right.  So why not mention DRM in the title and description
for this group?

cheers
Fred