- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:37:23 +0300
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org List" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 04:58 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: > Renato Iannella [2013-06-26T04:05]: > > On 25 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote: > >> > >> * Could you define DRM in one or two lines? > > > > Sure, happy to. 12 years ago [1] we defined it as: > > > > "DRM covers the description, identification, trading, protection, monitoring and tracking of all forms of rights usages over both tangible and intangible assets including management of rights holders relationships" > > ok that illustrates one of the core issues in our discussions. This is the formal definition of DRM as a system helping to manage the rights. But in the pop culture and inside this list I'm pretty sure that most people are using the term to say "content obfuscation without user control". Nobody talked about obfuscation. The "no-user control" part though is true. Actually I think the Wikipedia article is pretty good. "DRM technologies attempt to give control to the seller of digital content or devices after it has been given to a consumer. For digital content this means preventing the consumer access, denying the user the ability to copy the content or converting it to other formats. For devices this means restricting the consumers on what hardware can be used with the device or what software can be run on it." >From where I stand this clearly seems to be outside the scope of W3C's mission.
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 09:37:50 UTC