Re: Title and description of this group may mislead.

On 14/03/13 20:37, Fred Andrews wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:38:59 +0000
>> From: gerv@mozilla.org
>> To: fredandw@live.com
>> CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Title and description of this group may mislead.
>>
>> On 14/03/13 01:02, Fred Andrews wrote:
>> > There is no dispute that sever owners have a right to limit access

BTW, the title of this group doesn't contain the word "access".

>> Perhaps you could enumerate them, to illuminate the discussion?
>>
>> Do you mean "usernames and passwords"?
> 
> Yes, usernames and passwords are one approach.

Usernames and passwords solve an entirely different problem from the one
DRM purports to solve.

> There would appear to be no need to 'enumerate' them as
> the existence of just one unencumbered solution is adequate
> to be able to prove that access control can be solved with
> unencumbered solutions.

"Access control" is a broad term. The problem this technology is
purporting to solve is not the same as the problem of "only the right
person logging into a website".

>> > I suggest that the only disputed technology is 'strong DRM' and that
>> > the title and purpose of this group should reflect this.
>>
>> How would you distinguish "strong DRM" from "weak DRM", and determine
>> what sort falls into what category?
> 
> I did not mention the term 'weak DRM', but it might be useful to
> define it as ineffective DRM.

If you want to use "ineffective" as the antonym, presumably I can
reasonably rephrase what you said as:

> I suggest that the only disputed technology is 'effective DRM'

? When put like that, it rather reduces back to the only disputed
technology being "DRM".

Gerv

Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 16:06:02 UTC