Re: I strongly urge all supporters to reconsider the EME proposal. It is not in your best interests!

Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

>On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:
>
>> Le ven. 17/05/13, 09:54, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
>> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:
>> > > What we are discussing here is whether EME should get the W3C
>> > > “stamp of approval” which we equate with the “Open Web”. By Open,
>> > > it means this is something not discriminating or excluding anyone
>> > > regardless of which technology they use.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I can't resist pointing out that you do wish to exclude companies
>that
>> use
>> > DRM for content distribution, which is also a choice of technology.
>>
>> I am not talking about content distribution but about what
>> technology web users are using.
>
>
>I know. Actually I think you mean the consumers of the content. My
>point is
>that the producers of the content are users of the web as well.
>
>
>> So if you want to distribute
>> content in a way that discriminates some web users from other web
>> users, you are clearly outside of the scope of what we refer to as
>> the “open web”.
>>
>> You are wrong when you say that I wish to exclude companies that
>> use DRM. These companies are entirely welcome to distribute
>> content on the Web. They are also entirely welcome to distribute
>> content on the open Web, that is, in a way that do not
>> discriminate or exclude some users because of technological
>> consideration (for instance, a website designed solely for IE6 is
>> not “open”.)
>>
>
>If the producers technology choice does not align with the users
>technology
>choice, who is "excluding" whom ? Your argument relies on one set of
>choices having preferential status, that is all.

Those who try to standardize their technology choice are those who discriminate. 


--
Nikos Roussos 
http://roussos.cc

Received on Saturday, 18 May 2013 23:04:32 UTC