Re: Danger of DRM technologies stack

Duncan, the Director has already stated that Content Protection is in scope, AND that the W3C is not working on DRM. This response has been consistent and explained repeatedly! If you or others have a non-DRM solution that satisfies the use-cases and the need, then please by all means bring it forward - it will be welcomed here.

All of this has been said repeatedly, and yet it feels like talking to children, who continue to argue over and over with the same points. You already have the answer. The line has been drawn, and the next step for you and yours is to either deliver the alternative or move on. Harrass the political system, not the engineers. 

JF 

-------- Original message --------
From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> 
Date: 11/23/2013  1:25 PM  (GMT-08:00) 
To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Danger of DRM technologies stack 
 
> Le 22 nov. 2013 à 15:22, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> a écrit :
> > Here's a thought: don't buy the Renault Zoe.
> […]
> > Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> because you are supportive of free market forces for regulations and I
> don't. 
> why is this so hard to understand? ;)

I'm 100% in support of the free market on this matter; I'm an
anarcho-capitalist.  People should be free to buy DRM or non-DRM
products as they see fit, & manufacturers should be free to produce
whichever they choose.

But the question here is: is DRM something that the W3C should consider
in-scope?  That question is entirely orthogonal to issues relating to
consumer law, free markets, etc.

It is entirely consistent to be simultaneously pro-capitalism and
against the W3C considering DRM in-scope.

-- 
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.