- From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 23:56:35 -0400
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Cc: <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Le 11 mai 2013 à 11:42, John Foliot a écrit : > I believe you are missing another key reason for content encryption: I'm not missing it. I'm saying that Content encryption is promoted with the wrong arguments to justify it. > the content owners do not want others to modify or copy their content in any fashion Yes. And this is entirely different than paying. If content protection was solely pushed with this argument then there would be no fallacy in the arguments. We could argue on the merit or not in terms of society and some difficulties it creates for different actors of the society, but it's a very different topic. > - both also reasonable positions to take from a business > perspective. Copyrights != Business (Monetization) if you meant business as in making money of something. > This digital content, mostly video media, is not Open Source > software, Unrelated. I never mentioned opensource. A book is not opensource materials but its content is not obfuscated. ;) > it is commercial entertainment content which is licensed under > specific conditions, including forbidding copying or modifying, yes, unrelated to obfuscation of content. > as well as re-charging for a profit (public performance). yes, still unrelated. -- Karl Dubost http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Sunday, 12 May 2013 03:56:44 UTC