- From: Coyo <coyo@darkdna.net>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 03:15:18 -0500
- To: public-html-media@w3.org
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:07:24 +0200 Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Alex M <coyo@darkdna.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > > EME is nothing but a plugin system for using completely undocumented, > poorly understood and horrifyingly insecure plugin standard conforming > plugins. > Even if that is true, why do you think harrassing these people will do any good? Do you think these people need to be here? Think! Undocumented, poorly understood and horrifyingly insecure plugins have been agreed-upon in secret "Smoke-filled" rooms for decades, and the equivalent process for non-web agreements has been done for millenia. Do you really think any of them have any real need to publicly discuss standards for content-protection? Are you really incapable of understanding that this is actually a step in the right direction? Multi-billion dollar industries are not simply going to abandon business models that they have invested their entire family's life savings into because some people on the Internet say they should. You are being not only naive, but unhelpful. If you want to make a difference, join a software project such as MediaGoblin, to name one one many, to help provide an alternative to content producers, copyright owners, and publishers, that would make the Internet and society in general a better place. I am interested in seeing what direction this initiative goes, not in listening to email after email of you harassing and disrupting this initiative. Please contain your enthusiasm.
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 08:15:33 UTC