- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:19:53 +0300
- To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>, "coordinators@igcaucus.org" <coordinators@igcaucus.org>
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 15:35 +1000, Renato Iannella wrote: > On 25 Jun 2013, at 03:34, Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org> wrote: > > > Certainly the legal issues are not black-and-white in a worldwide scale. > > That's why we shouldn't support DRM-based technical solutions that are > > clearly on the black side of the spectrum and disregard any shades of > > gray on consumers rights. > > That is a rather tough policy position to support, as I can think of other W3C standards that fall into the same category. > > The classic being that I use HTML5 to markup "slanderous" text on my website (the text being illegal in Australia). > Do we blame HTML5? W3C? No...it is the *user* of the technology that has broken the law, not the technology itself. Norbert already answered on that, but just for the sake of the argument, an analogy like this would only make sense if "slanderous" text is the only way you could use HTML5 effectively.
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 10:20:19 UTC