- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:10:21 +0300
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 15:20 +0200, Emmanuel Revah wrote: > On 2013/06/10 04:47, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > On 6/9/2013 2:20 PM, Joshua Gay wrote: > > [..] > > >> 1. Copyright violations (sharing, etc) are a threat to the model > >> > >> One reason the business model needs copy restrictions (aka content > >> protection) is because a significant enough number of users will > >> violate > >> the copyright on the work. This means a lot of people (who otherwise > >> would pay) aren't paying for a work. > >> > >> In the United States and in many other countries with strong > >> democratic > >> traditions, there are powerful laws and justice systems to enforce > >> those > >> laws around copyright. When violating those laws, a person is taking > >> part in criminal behaviour. > >> > >> So, when the W3C does work that is to support a business model like > >> this, they are also giving support to the assumption that a > >> significant > >> portion of the public are likely to take part in criminal behaviour. > > > > I think this statement is a little strong. Noone would say that a > > company that provides house alarms assumes that a significant portion > > of the public are likely to take part in criminal behavior. Rather, > > they would say that a significant portion of the public has a desire > > to protect their homes. > > > The house alarm is used to warn/protect against people who are not > authorised to enter the home whereas DRM is used against identified and > authorised users. > > EME/DRM is more comparable to an alarm designed to protect home owners > against their own guests. Actually it's even worse, since in many countries someone that purchases a book or a dvd is consider to be the owner of this object. Not just a user (a "guest" reader or viewer).
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 18:10:45 UTC