Re: Oppose DRM ! Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

The question at hand is not approving the spec, but to approve publishing the First Public Working Draft. The purpose of FPWD is to "signal to the community to begin reviewing the document." Public review is a cornerstone of our open process.

Based on the rich discussion from the CfC, it seems the community is ready for such a review. It would be great if we could focus the discussion on the specification particulars to understand in what cases changes can be made to fix issues and in what cases wholesale alternative proposals can be presented.

The alternative to publishing FPWD would likely be for this work to continue without such public review, which benefits no one.

So, I think all parties benefit by publishing FPWD and getting all the alternatives on the table.

Thanks,
mav

On Jan 22, 2013, at 3:03 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>> 
>> As discussed here some time ago the only purpose of this specification
>> is to enable DRM, which is Defective by Design
>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
>> 
> 
> I well appreciate that this is a politically charged issue, but there is a
> clear business need for *something* by more than one W3C stake-holder
> involved in this discussion. Not everyone will agree with the opinions of
> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ - a politically motivated organization -
> and to drive this kind of web specification outside of the W3C is
> counter-productive to the larger goal of the work we are doing here.
> 
> I urge others to read the following statement from the Daisy Consortium:
> http://data.daisy.org/publications/docs/positionpapers/position_paper_protec
> ting_content.html
> 
> Suggesting that content owners do not have a right to control the
> distribution of their intellectual property may not fit with the political
> views of some, but to ignore those legitimate business requirements is akin
> to burying your head in the sand.
> 
> If you are concerned that this FPWD has technical holes, or you have an
> alternative idea to satisfy that requirement, I urge you and others to
> either a) provide further details on the technical problems, or b) start
> your own alternative extension specification that meets the use-case
> requirements. Throwing up our collective hands and declaring "DRM is evil"
> is not the answer.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> JF
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 01:12:47 UTC