W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > May 2013

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

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:48:58 -0700
To: 'Florian Bösch' <pyalot@gmail.com>, <john@netpurgatory.com>
Cc: "'Andreas Kuckartz'" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, <public-html-admin@w3.org>, <public-html-media@w3.org>, <jeff@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020401ce5d77$1c38f7f0$54aae7d0$@ca>
Florain,

 

I have no idea why you feel compelled to mention a non-W3C member (my
employer) in this discussion – it is the sign of a scared little person
grasping at straws.

 

To be absolutely and abundantly clear, I speak here as John Foliot – Netizen
and contributor to the W3C (as my email address of record at the W3C should
make quite clear). I do not represent my employer, their thoughts, policies
or opinions, and attempting to connect the two is both distasteful and
dishonest.

 

Shame on you.

 

JF

 

From: Florian Bösch [mailto:pyalot@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:34 PM
To: john@netpurgatory.com
Cc: John Foliot; Andreas Kuckartz; Sam Ruby; Tim Berners-Lee;
public-html-admin@w3.org; <public-html-media@w3.org>; jeff@w3.org
Subject: Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted
Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

 

I'd like to add that JP Morgan Chase and whomever else is perfectly free to
publish whatever software they want, and if they'd like to do that with
Google and Netflix, knock yourselves out. I don't believe the W3C which has
as its charter to promote an open and accessible web is the right place for
that endevour.

 

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:29 PM, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013, John Foliot wrote:

<non-technical post, with apologies>

Your stated reasoning appears to be that if you are "successful" you will
have somehow stopped Digital Rights Management from being used on the web,
or being supported by commercial browsers developed by privately held
commercial companies today. The Web "MUST REMAIN FREE!!!" you rally. As an
analogy, I see this as akin to stating that you support freedom of religion
as long as that religion is based upon a form of Christianity - anyone who
deviates from that myopic perspective is "wrong", misguided, or simply
"greedy".


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.  Speaking largely for myself, I  don't like the
idea of the w3c endorsing such a think and I disapprove of DRM on a variety
of grounds, but I don't believe stopping this proposal will magically make
DRM go away.  So I don't appreciate you suggesting such ignorance or magical
thinking on "our side" (and I also hate this seems to turn into and our side
vs. their side argument).  I know that I have not suggested such things
about you or anyone else who is in favor of EME.

John

-------------------------------------------------------
John C. Vernaleo, Ph.D.
www.netpurgatory.com
john@netpurgatory.com
-------------------------------------------------------



 
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:49:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:23 UTC