On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:57 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > Am I the only one following this thread who finds it ironic that the man > who wants the W3C to not discuss technical issues around WebVR and DRM > I have no problem with the discussion on technical details, I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Florian, we all (or, at least, *I*) understand your philosophical stand > around Premium Content protection, but at the end of the day it remains a > legal activity, and that legal activity brings with it technical challenges > and questions. That is what the the W3C should remain focused on, the > technical discussions, and leave the politicking to the politicians. > Unfortunately with DRM you step into the legal realm because it has been married to the DMCA. It's therefore impossible to have a discussion about DRM without philosophical and legal aspects. If you're not happy that DRM is inseparably married to philosophy and law, maybe you should repeal the DMCA. DRMs are used primarily to exclude competition. Doesn't it strike you as odd that 5 years after the introduction of EME, there are still only really two users? Or that it's a "standard" you have to pay to use? Or that the only users there are, are among the largest companies on the planet, which are the only ones that can afford to use it? Don't you think there's something wrong with supporting something that utterly fails at achieving its stated goals, but introduces a pleathora of social, legal, ethical, technical and quality drawbacks and whose mere presence just reinforces existing monopolies?
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 21:06:02 UTC