Re: Forwarded Invite to Discussion of EME at the European Parliament, Oct. 15, 11:00-13:00

> No, my frustration is that we rarely get beyond a rather vague "I don't
> like it", or "it's contrary to some [rather unexplored] principles."

Those 'rather unexplored' principles are clearly spelled out and
explained on the W3Cs own website.  Where incompatibilities arise with
'content protection', those incompatibilities have been clearly spelled
out on this list.

There is no ambiguity or vagueness here.
 
>  Until we can get a reasoned exploration of the problems we don't like,
> and an analysis of what's needed, I doubt we'll see a better idea.  And
> without a better idea, I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

We already have a better idea, clearly stated by me and many others on
this list: declare 'content protection' to be out of scope, and cease
all work on it.

You are assuming from the outset that some sort of 'content protection'
will be discussed; this is begging the question.

> Nor does imputing motives to others help, or roping in other (mostly
> unrelated) problems, or other questionable debating techniques.  In fact,
> they look like attempts to bolster a weak case.

I'm sorry if I seemed to be imputing motives to you, specifically.  What
I meant by my statement is that Apple, Netflix et al have managed to
have content protection declared in-scope *before* any public
consultation or discussion took place.

Clearly, those companies in favour of EME did not want the decision on
scope challenged in any way.

What motives would you like me to infer from those actions?

-- 
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 Tuesday, 15 October 2013 00:16:24 UTC