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

I should probably make a note here, that if EME was not publicly
defined and specified as a formal web standard, the alternative would
be far, far, FAR worse, involving the use of ugly, sluggish, mostly
undocumented, poorly understood, horrifyingly insecure, and
standard-breaking plugins, which should be avoided given any
opportunity.

Even if people generally agree that EME can be defined loosely as
DRM-in-HTML5 (which it technically is NOT a core specification, NOT is
any browser required to implement any component specified in the EME
RFCs or any supplementary document related to the EME specs.

I would like to remind the other activists and privacy-conscious
individuals who are subscribed to this list that disrupting or trolling
this mailing list does not contribute to personal freedom online or
privacy in any way whatsoever, and anyone trolling this mailing list is
embarrassing anyone who contributes significant time and money to
preserving digital liberties and personal privacy.

Please contain your enthusiasm, and remind yourselves that these
individuals are VERY BRAVE; they are working ver hard, in difficult
positions within their respective companies, to preseve the spirit
of an open web and ARE VOLUNTARILY cooperating IN PUBLIC as a very
honorable gesture of transparency and a willingness to go the extra
mile to avoid unnecessary proprietary plugins and poorly-understood
systems to preserve their precious media and publications.

It is not our place to question them based on our own preferences on
how artists choose to publish the works that they have created.

If creative commons and "Freer" approaches to trying to make a living
as an artist really are superior, then explain to those artists why
your way is better.

These developers and standards codifiers are not responsible for the
way society is, they are doing what they can to make the web a
saner and more open place.

Will you please stop embarrassing the free software movement!

Stop harassing them!

Thank you!

As a side note, I have a very unique perspective as both a free
software coder AND a fairly successful author and artist who has made
significant income publishing-by-commission.

I can tell any free software advocates currently subscribed to this
list right now: You know nothing about what being an artist is really
like.

Spend more time on DeviantArt, rather than focusing on why the
government should host publicly-funded BitTorrent seedboxes.

Thank you.


To the brave and honorable souls who are attempted to be fair and
judicious when you really don't have to be, I deeply apologize for my
peers' humiliating behavior.

Please take note: We're not all like this. Some of us recognize how
hard it is to take this kind of criticism when you are doing this
because you feel it is right.

I really appreciate the effort you guys are making, especially those of
you who are employed by NetFlix.

I admire your efforts here. Even if my own personal preferences would
be to encourage artists who are currently partnered with publishers who
have invested a lot of time, energy and effort into tried-and-true
business models into considering a more commission-based or merch-based
business model, and to encourage the publishers to begin shifting to a
more fluid and prepay-focused business model, I can understand that
saying 

"we should switch to funding bands, studios, musicians and other
content-producers with crowd-funded commission models, and
distribute media almost exclusively via digital storefronts, as opposed
to selling physical media that no one wants anymore, "

is very VERY different from actually doing that in today's markets and
political reality.

It is not so simple.

I have worked on bookstores and music stores, I have family members who
OWN book and music stores, I have immediate close friends and family
who are very successful musicians, and they have told me more horror
stories about the mainstream publishing reality for content producers
than I could possibly count, much less write about.

I have successfully self-published books, and made a decent income from
writing.

I have had very loyal repeat commissioners BEG me to illustrate
characters for them, illustrate for their novels.

I have contributed for well-known free and open source projects, and
have been paid for my original code. I hold the copyrights to both
fairly large software projects, some of which I have chosen to release
under the GPL, AND illustrations, published novels and anthologies of
short stories.

This is not the time and place to promote myself, so I will refrain
from directly linking to my works in this listserv, however, I mention
this because I have extensive experience in both general programming
and publishing as an author and illustrator.

I feel confident that I can tell those of you who are embarrassing
those of us who really believe in a better Internet that you are
wasting time here by trolling and harassing individuals who do not have
to be here, who are doing what they believe is right, to the extend
that it can be done in the political and market reality of today.

To the listserv moderators and administrators, I apologize for this
lengthy email, but I have reached the limit of my patience for
individuals who should know better, and have far better things to do
than harass well-meaning people who are actually contributing things of
substance and meaning to society.

Again, thank you for your time and patience.


On 1 Jun 2013 08:01:39 +0200
"Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:

> 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 07:58:02 UTC