- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:15:30 -0800
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > The reason that content protection is in scope for W3C is that we cannot > compete if we don't have a framework to accept protected content. We > would like to find a way to do that which is consistent with open web > principles. But this is the problem: content protection as provided by closed-source, proprietary CDM blobs is functionally equivalent to the closed boxes with which you claim to be competing. You're not providing an alternative to the closed boxes, you're merely providing a means to interface to them. There is no competition there, only collusion. On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > That's the reason that we have rejected anything > proprietary or patent encumbered from the Open Web Platform. Only after an uproar from the community, just as is happening now with your declaring DRM as in-scope. * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/01/the_free_webs_over_as/ * http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response * http://www.advogato.org/article/352.html Then, as now, the W3C started out down a path that would prove disastrous to the Open Web. Then, as now, there was an outcry from developers across the world. Will you listen now, as you did then? -- Duncan Bayne ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype: duncan_bayne I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 21:15:53 UTC