RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> What if the kind of architecture that is pursued in the EME spec is in
> fact the best possible solution to the stated requirement,

It is technology, not civil rights law. 

In my opinion, if the technology is sound, well constructed, and the
emergent specification is clear, implementable, Patent-free, and has at
least 2 independent implementations, then it meets the criteria of a
technical standard that can become a W3C Recommendation, and should do so.


> but it is
> still very bad because it is fundamentally incompatible with building
> an open web and ICT systems that provide a reasonable environment for
> the protection of human rights?

Your definition of "bad" here is neither universally accepted, nor is it a
technical impediment to implementation - it is a subjective interpretation
based upon your current political thinking, and perhaps your geographic
location today. I am neither affected by, nor governed by, Swiss law. I am a
Canadian citizen living in the United States, and so for the most part I am
not even affected by Canadian law (despite my citizenship) - I live under US
law, and in this country, theft is theft, and US copyright law is
interpreted by US courts.

Asking the W3C to craft technical standards based upon regional legislation
is, in my opinion, a bad idea, as the W3C is an international standards
body. It is not a democratically elected institution, it produces standards
that are used in countries of all manner of political governance (including
Switzerland *AND* North Korea), and the goal of the W3C is, to my mind, to
produce international standards, not advocate nor impede political
discourse. Asking this body to take political sides on a matter is unfair,
and should be rejected as a matter of course. Picking a side is the
antithesis of interoperability, which is also a goal of the W3C, as it
presumes that one system is better than the other, and that the other should
be ignored and left to "wither". I reject that stand as vehemently as you
reject "not-free" software for pretty much the same reasons: principle.
(Hollywood movies, BTW, are not software).

I get your perspective, I truly do, but I believe you are fighting the wrong
battle here at the W3C. You need to take this fight to your local
legislation, or perhaps seek to have it addressed at a forum such as the
United Nations or the WTO. 

Meanwhile however, a collection of companies, some of them clear and direct
competitors to each other, have gathered together, publicly, to produce a
technical standard that will be Patent free, "open" in construction and
usage, and implementable by anyone who wishes to do so. Leave that work to
continue, and leave it to continue at the W3C, because I believe the W3C is
your best bet that this work will address as many concerns as possible with
regard to the technical implementation of said standard.

JF

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 04:53:09 UTC