W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal

From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
Date: 4 Mar 2012 12:30:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4F53524A.7090608@ping.de>
To: "John Foliot" <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Mark Watson'" <watsonm@netflix.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 03.03.2012 19:46, John Foliot wrote
(directed to Ian but obviously others as well, such as myself):
> Your paternally condescending insistence to insert yourself
> in the middle of this transaction infringes upon the right
> of the vendor and the consumer to make an informed,
> mutually beneficial contractual exchange.

Having experienced the effects of "protecting" content
which I have legally acquired from myself I think it is
ridiculous to talk about "mutually beneficial contractual
exchanges" in this context.

> These potential consumers have specific rights with regard to the law of
> false and deceptive advertising, unfair trade practices and illegal
> marketing (as does the vendor). If any of those rights are infringed upon,
> the consumer has a right to seek redress using the current legal system.

In theory the consumers might have this right. In practice in the
U.S. the laws were and are essentially made by those who are
paid by some of those "vendors". Outside America that is widely
known (or should be).

> What is unethical is you attempting to impose upon me, or any other
> client of Netflix's service, that I must enter into a contractual
> with that company *under your conditions*.

Neither Ian nor anybody else wrote that. When do you stop beating your wife?

> By what authority do you or the
> W3C have the right to impose what
> could be considered restrictive trade
> conditions? *You* think that it's unethical
> and immoral?

The topic of this whole thread is a technical proposal which intends to
create a technical framework to technically restrict what people can do
with their own hardware (in other words: to restrict accessibility).
Yes, that is unethical and immoral and should not receive blessing from
the W3C.

> Unbelievable.

Some of what you wrote is unbelievable, indeed.

Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 11:30:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:49 UTC