Re: Requirements for Content Protection

Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> I'll let Mark comment whether [1] is the most up to date statement,
> but I believe that it is.
> 
> While it references "support of agreements with content owners", it
> does not define a specific agreement text with a specific content
> owner.  In my view it leaves open the possibility of a consensus to
> use a different regime for content protection, as I've indicated
> earlier in the thread. Additionally, it has several other degrees of
> freedom to allow for a full exploration of the design space including
> the opening disclaimer (point 2 - requirements are not perfect) and
> point 6 - open source browser requirement.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Content_Protection

Notably not included in that list of requirements are

* That people should still be able to exercise the rights that they
  have as a matter of law, in their jurisdiction (independently of what
  permissions are granted by the license).

* That the “content protection methods” should also work with Free
  Software / "open source" operating system platforms (rather than just
  browsers).

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 13:49:18 UTC