Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group

On 1/10/2014 6:28 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
> Obviously I support keeping the web open to feature additions and I 
> don't want to censure any discussion of features.
>
> However, DRM is not a typical 'feature'.  It has the characteristic of 
> blocking other features under the threat of persecution.  Let's call 
> it a mis-feature.  I know some members of this group object to even 
> adding a 'do-not-copy' flag - it could legally constrain browser 
> vendors.  There is a class of 'misfeatures' that we could define.
>
> How can a group open to the discussion of features also be open to 
> mis-features that taint all discussions and still all get along?  I 
> suggest we will need to exclude the mis-features, that we will need to 
> exclude DRM, in the web from the group.  The proponents of 
> mis-features might retort that we are hypocrites censuring their 
> 'features'[sic] when we espouse open discussion.   What other options 
> are there?   Help me out here?
>
> Note 'discussion' is being used to include preparing and promoting 
> specs and distributing user agents etc.  It would have been clearer to 
> separate 'discussion' from promoting specific paths but this is the 
> way Tim has chosen to frame the work of the web ecosystem.
>
> The issue at hand is not the development of technical solutions to 
> problems, or the search for a technically 'better' solution.  The 
> solution space has been confined to supporting client side 
> restrictions on use by the publishers, and to being part of the web by 
> Tim and the W3C, and the people being redirected here seek solutions 
> in which the discussion of web features is still open (excludes 
> mis-features) and in which DRM is not part of the web - the solution 
> space is empty.
>
> The work on the EME proceeds - I suggest that a problem that the 
> DRM-Web proponents are working on includes the plausible 
> reconstruction of the web to be compatible with DRM, a political 
> problem, and that keeping this group open as-is advances their 
> interests and not the interests of many people being redirected here.
>
> So what ideas do you have to help us all get along in our open 
> discussion that is the web ecosystem?

Long ago I proposed that we work on a soft-DRM system that is breakable 
(hence less secure) and then sell it to content owners as the right 
approach.  I believe it was attacked by content owners as not being 
protective enough of content, and by free software advocates as not 
worth the time.  I'm still looking to build a community around such a 
solution.

>
> cheers
> Fred
>
> > From: karl@la-grange.net
> > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:45:42 +0900
> > CC: stsil@manurevah.com; public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> > To: fredandw@live.com
> > Subject: Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close 
> this community group
> >
> >
> > Le 10 janv. 2014 à 10:29, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> a écrit :
> > > We can start a new group
> >
> > No need.
> >
> > > and make a fresh start exploring alternative approaches such as 
> water marking, or using web intents to redirect DRM content to an 
> alternative device,
> >
> > Provoke change by positive discussions and technical solutions. Do 
> propose stuff please. Write document explaining how it is working. 
> Create implementations. Experimentations. 1 million yes.
> >
> > > and we can control the scope of discussion to poison it from being 
> used by Tim and the W3C to support their position on the principles of 
> the web which we dispute.
> >
> > Censorship is never a good start. The discussion _is_ open. The 
> proof is that nobody censored you, even being opposed myself to DRM, I 
> find, personally, your emails not helping at all with finding better 
> alternatives.
> >
> > --
> > Karl Dubost 🐄
> > http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
> >
> >