Re: Principles (was RE: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?)

John Foliot [2013-06-14T11:58]:
>> Here is the core of the issue. "Must exist". This is set as a
>> requirement. A part of the industry wants it, it doesn't mean, it must
>> exist.
> 
> Karl, if I re-wrote that sentence to read:
> 
> 	"...on why this messy bit of engineering *WILL* exist..."
> 
> ...would that accuracy make you feel better?


yes. Definitely. I also believe that the industry will do whatever it takes for it to happen.


> The real question is,
> will we be able to find an open-enough content protection solution for them
> so that they don't have to turn to "apps" (or traditional plugins) to
> achieve their goals? Or will the W3C throw in the towel on finding a
> workable solution, leaving it to proprietary solutions and perpetuating a
> fragmented ecosystem? 


Well it is where we diverge in opinions. ;) 
And it's fine, it's two different choices in life.


> And since the subject line of *this* email is "Principles", how does
> fostering and accepting a fragmented internet ecosystem advance the W3C's
> goals?

Here you are putting me back in a position where you are with or against us. I said it a few times. I do not want DRM, nor copy protection of content. There are laws in the world against illegal copies. On the other hand, I want mechanisms for making it seamless to be able to pay for content. We do not have that yet. And W3C should be working on that. 


> "Paying" the artist is indeed one of the goals,

yes.

> but so are (I believe)
> imposing some controls over unauthorized distribution/redistribution,
> unauthorized copying, and unauthorized alteration, manipulation or creation
> of derivative works based upon the restricted content. 

If in controls you mean technical and pre-emptive. no.
If in controls you mean legal and based on actions being done. yes.


-- 
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 16:34:29 UTC