On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > >> Yes, indeed, and that's great. But it's not all content creators that > > >> can or are willing to go that way. > > > > > > Obviously. But it's not the W3Cs job to break the WWW to accommodate > > > those who aren't willing. > > > > well, nor is it the W3C's position to break them -- insist that they go > > bankrupt -- in order to satisfy some idea of purity, either. > > No-one is suggesting that the W3C force anyone to go bankrupt. All > we're saying is that it's not the W3Cs job to help prop up their > business models at the expense of their mission. > > There are already DRM 'solutions' based upon Silverlight, Flash and many > other proprietary plugins and app-store apps. Those won't go away if > the W3C refuses to play ball. > True enough. And users who want to watch DRM-protected content, despite the DRM, will be worse off for it. Users who reject DRM will see no difference either way. ...Mark > > -- > 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. > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 00:08:06 UTC