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

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alex M <coyo@darkdna.net> wrote:

> Even if that is true, why do you think harrassing these people will do
> any good?

Do you think that arguing in favor of EME will do any good?


> Do you think these people need to be here?
>
Do you think I need to be here?


> Think!

Dito


> 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.
>
Irrelevant to argument.


> Do you really think any of them have any real need to publicly
> discuss standards for content-protection?
>
Yes.



> Are you really incapable of understanding that this is actually a step
> in the right direction?
>
Are you incapable of understanding that it's not enough of a step in the
right direction but a half-measure doing nothing but preserving
aforementioned abysmal situation that "as been
done for millenia."?


> 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.
>
Think of the kids! Oh those poor billion dollar syndicates. We never let
them do what they want. It's so unfair.


> You are being not only naive, but unhelpful.
>
And you aren't being naive and 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.
>
MediaGoblin won't be able to make use of EME. The CDMs
documentation/implementation required to satisfy an EME client with a
particular CDM implementation (such as widevine) won't be available for a
free software project. MediaGoblin also won't be able to provide their own
CDM because the gatekeepers to that are the UA vendors. You'd need to
convince Microsoft (who owns their own DRM stack, fairplay etc.), Mozilla
(who isn't fond of CDMs), Google (who owns Widevine) and Apple (who
generally isn't fond of including third party software in their browser) to
accept MediaGoblins CDM. Won't happen.


> I am interested in seeing what direction this initiative goes, not in
> listening to email after email of you harassing and disrupting this
> initiative.
>
I'm not the only one disagreeing you know.


> Please contain your enthusiasm.
>
Dito