- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:30:53 -0700
- To: JF <john@foliot.ca>, singer@apple.com
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> > to the question of whether > DRM is inimical to the W3Cs mission & goals. > > I think that the founder and Director of the W3C has pretty much answered > that question. You and others might not like the answer, but it *has* > been answered - EME and the business goals of protecting Premium Content > are in scope. I don't like the answer, and neither do many others. I understand the decision the Director has made, and in fact, I posted a link to an analysis of it earlier in the discussion. I just think it's the *wrong* decision. > Continuing to state that it is "inimical to the W3Cs mission & goals" > repeatedly doesn't seem to be changing the answer any. Do you have > anything new to add, or will you just continue proving to us that you > like writing "inimical"? I still hope that it's possible to convince Tim & others to change the decision, but given the carefully restricted scope of the public consultation on this, I consider that unlikely. Re. this thread, I was trying to make the point that, for the purposes of deciding whether to treat DRM as in-scope, it doesn't matter whether or not the movie industry wants it or not. -- 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, 22 October 2013 02:31:15 UTC