Re: "Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages"

Well it is restricted content, but some might object so I would just say "content".

Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>On 7/12/2013 2:00 PM, Emmanuel Revah wrote:
>>> On 2013/07/12 19:28, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2013 10:15 AM, Emmanuel Revah wrote:
>>>>> On 2013/07/12 00:37, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If these systems are also interested in viewing premium content,
>>they
>>>>>> also already have proprietary software to view that content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they are not interested in viewing the premium content, they
>>won't
>>>>>> have EME either.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The term "premium content" should not be used in this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> We've already had this discussion extensively on the list and tried
>>>> unsuccessfully to find a word we can all agree on.
>>>>
>>>> The more complete description is that certain content owners
>>invested
>>>> a great deal to create certain content and therefore have expressed
>>a
>>>> requirement to protect that content.  'Premium' content was an
>>>> abbreviation.  So the proper way for me to have made my point was
>>by
>>>> saying:
>>>>
>>>> "If these systems are also interested in viewing content whose
>>owners
>>>> invested a great deal to create and therefore have a desire to
>>protect
>>>> that content, they already have proprietary software to view that
>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>> If they are not interested in viewing content whose owners invested
>>a
>>>> great deal to create and therefore have a desire to protect that
>>>> content, they won't have EME either."
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that this more lengthy description changes my
>>dismissal
>>>> of the argument that EME is relevant to the Prism program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that the W3C should consider different classes of 
>>>>> content.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> One way to interpret this remark is that W3C should not have
>>accepted
>>>> the "content protection" requirement of the Web and TV Interest
>>Group
>>>> - which of course has been well debated on this list.
>>>
>>>
>>> With all due respect, you appear to be missing the point.
>>>
>>> "Premium" is the wrong word (semantics and all that stuff):
>>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premium
>>>
>>> A set of standards either is or is not, the standards for the Open
>>Web 
>>> should not be for "premium" stuffs. It is for all content or for no 
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Users of the standards can then decide to implement EME or not and 
>>> they can do so according to their own reasoning.
>>>
>>>
>>> The word you should want to use is "restricted content" or
>>eventually 
>>> "protected content", but certainly not "premium content".
>>
>>I don't think I'm missing the point.  The first thing that I said
>>above 
>>was "we tried unsuccessfully to find a word we can all agree on".  If
>>I 
>>had used "restricted content", I would have been criticized by those
>>who 
>>didn't like that term.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>

-- 
Sent from my Replicant phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Visit replicant.us

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 18:08:20 UTC