- From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:22:31 +0200
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Le lun. 20/05/13, 08:00, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>: > Second, I addressed the idea that this is an affront to ordinary users > earlier in the thread. Modest security measures are not generally > considered an affront even when they are inconvenient to ordinary > users. Users understand that there are a minority of people who want > to get stuff without paying. Now, you can reasonably argue that the > measures are disproportionate to the threat. There are plenty of > examples where people go too far with security measures, causing too > much inconvenience to those who are not in fact a threat. But it makes > no sense in such cases to argue that, therefore, there should be no > security measures. This is not about a minority of users who want to get stuff without paying. This is not about security either. This is about who controls what, this is about freedom. Not about the freedom to do whatever you like and get away with it for free; but the freedom of a person to act responsibly and to control their own computing. The fact is, with EME, users are not free any more: the CDM controls what they can do; and the CDM can claim to have more power than copyright-holders are legally entitled to. This is an affront to every ordinary user. -- Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/ Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 15:23:14 UTC