- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:10:34 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/10/04 13:00, Karl Dubost wrote: > In the DRM debate, finding a better thing is key. Some of us can try > to change the international law about Intellectual Property and some > are trying, but that's a tough fight. I think EME is not a good idea, > but that's a negative argument. It doesn't create something. Why is that finding a better "thing" is considered as the only way to avoid W3C's recommendation of EME ? Are retarded business models that want to be on the web more important than the web's users ? W3C says yes. Of course the W3C is a community, but it has guidelines. From what I've understood, EME does not respect those guidelines. For example, there is no guideline that states "if you can't find a better solution then we should use this broken thing here". EME is broken (100% of DRM so far breaks at some point), it does not respect the users (the users must give up control over their computing to use it) and mostly (because this goes against clear W3C guidelines), it allows "validated" websites to publish content that is not accessible to all. Good day ! -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 13:11:05 UTC