Defamation Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

John Foliot:
> John C. Vernaleo wrote
>>
>> I don't think anyone has suggested that stopping the EME proposal (or
>> whatever exactly it technically is at this point) will stop DRM on
>> the web.  That is an pretty serious mischaracterization of the
>> positions of the people who do not agree with it.
>
> "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has announced that it has
> filed a formal objection to the W3C's draft for EME (Encrypted Media >
Extensions), a standard being developed by the W3C's HTML working
> group to enable standardised DRM plugins for streamed media."
> -
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/EFF-formally-objects-to-W3C-
> DRM-proposal-1873487.html
>
> Outside of the technical falsehood being expressed here (one of the
> goals EME is seeking is to remove the need for plugins), the EFF
> continues to couple EME with DRM, despite the W3C expressly stating
> the contrary:

The link obviously points to a website which is not controlled by the
EFF and the quoted text obviously was not written by the EFF but by an
author working for that website. It obviously contains sloppy reporting:
The Formal Objection by the EFF is directed against the Draft Charter of
the WG, not directly against the EME draft.

> They are, in effect, calling W3C management liars.

John Foliot already admitted in another mail that he did not read the
Formal Objection but he did read the Press Release published by the EFF:
"trust me, I have read their press release, and I understand what they
are saying."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013May/0152.html

All of this taken together amounts to an effort to defame and libel the
EFF. This unprofessional behavior is unacceptable.

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 07:10:38 UTC