- From: <passani@eunet.no>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:45:08 +0100 (CET)
- To: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
> In any case, I'm not going to waste time arguing the point with you - > just wanted to correct the false assertion that you'd made this point > before and no-one had objected. I said that, when talking about "the right to transcode", vendors refer to the "what users want" as justification, while the same vendors omit mentioning the right of content owners to have their content preserved. Rigo's legal opinion is not an objection to what I said. It's an opinion that, according to him, no-transcode is enough to protect content. That opinion was raised in a separate context and not to address something I had said specifically. My point is "do you think it's right to ignore the rights of content owner"? nobody ever answered "yes, it is" here, on momolondon or on WMLProgramming. You are now making a connection between this and a only distantly-related issue with how to protect once content in practice. So, you did not correct any false assertion of mine. Luca
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 19:45:43 UTC