Re: I strongly urge all supporters to reconsider the EME proposal. It is not in your best interests!

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2013/05/20 17:49, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 20, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:
>>
>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> And no one is taking that away. Should I not also have the freedom to
>> give up a little bit of control of what my computer does with some
>> specific data at a specific time and in a specifically constrained way
>> if I am offered something in return ? Or would you have it that people
>> are forbidden from offering or forbidden from accepting such a deal ?
>>
>
>
> Nowhere in this whole thread has anyone ever spoken of removing the user's
> choice to install non-free software on their computer.
>

Hugo referred to users "freedom ... to control their own computing", as if
this was threatened, as if people would be required to install non-free
software (which would be removing their choice). Indeed, noone is proposing
removing users choice in this matter.


>
> To un-spin; We are talking about the W3's approval of a system that would
> allow and encourage websites to control their visitor's browsers.


Un-spin welcomed. Actually, we're talking about replacing one such system,
plugins, with another with better properties. With EME, websites will have
far less control over users browsers than we do today and the nature of the
control will be mediated via browser vendors and thus more transparent to
users.

...Mark


>
>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>
>
>