>> Le 18 oct. 2013 à 18:31, "Marjolein Katsma Photography" <photography@marjoleinkatsma.com> a écrit :
>>
>> On 2013-10-18 17:34, DANET PIERRE wrote:
>> We need rationale discussion, arguments and not religious proclamations.
>
> I can agree with this much.
Ok tnx !
>
>> 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.
Ok, you take your own case, and i'm happy for you, but you're one case only. There are other creators like you. Ok.
But, there are other authors and creators who earn money from their talent and creations claim for content protection. That's also real.
> - The music industry has (largely, though not yet completely) learned
> this, and no longer uses any DRM ("protection").
There is no more real music industry. All business schools cover now the errors of this industry, one of them having given up content protection, among other errors, i must admit.
