Re: RE : Trust

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Marjolein Katsma Photography <
photography@marjoleinkatsma.com> wrote:

> On 2013-10-18 17:34, DANET PIERRE wrote:
>
>> We need rationale discussion, arguments and not religious proclamations.
>>
>
> I can agree with this much.
>
>
>  The fact that content protection is needed as their authors, creators
>> request it is the first reality.
>>
>
> Well, that didn't go very far, I'm afraid. This is not a fact, but a
> (your) belief. That is not a fact, is evidenced by the fact that I, a
> photographer with a keen interest in web standards and (yes) the Open Web,
> contest that "content protection" is needed at all. The "reality" is that
> only *some* authors and creators want to "protect" their content from being
> seen/heard/read by anyone who is interested - and that other authors and
> creators want to "protect" their work from ever being "protected" *against*
> people who want to see/hear/read it.
>

Hold on.  That's what they said about the printing press.  Books.  The
radio.  Audio tape.  Video tape.  Television.  Cable TV.  It's all evil.

Now we have the internet and people must be punished, taxed and be held
accountable for the use of this medium, as they were for all the media that
came before.  It is not our responsibility to evolve our business models
for changing technology, it is our responsibility to make sure that no
technological change changes they way we fill our pockets.

They must run programs on their computers that they have no control over so
that we have control over them.  They cannot be trusted, we can.  The W3C
must provide an interface for us to fleece the masses or we will have hissy
fits like we have with every other technological change.



If the W3C wishes to throw it's good name away then we will just have to
replace it.  They had a good run.  If the internet gets parcelled up and
sold off to corporate interests, we can replace that too.
*
*I'm unsubscribing from this list.  It's become spam.

*Cheers!*
**
*
*