- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:27:27 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/10/22 04:30, Duncan Bayne wrote: [...] >> 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"? JF, I don't understand why such a remark. Some of us learned a new word. (on a side note, it's really too bad your MUA breaks threading (at least for me), all your replies appear to me as new threads. Imagine the deception this morning). [...] > > 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. This exactly. Though this has been said over and over (and over) again... .. sometimes with better wording than others. Too many times the conversation gets steered off topic. Piracy and business models, those shouldn't be the concern in this place. A problem is that some EME proponents don't want to acknowledge the issue with a possible degradation of the W3C's credibility. It's almost 'the' issue, yet many proponents on this list dismiss it entirely. This is part of why the discussion goes nowhere, credibility is at stake and it's not a non-issue as some may pretend it is. Maybe another way to look at the question: If EME within the W3C creates a divided web, would it be worth it ? -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 10:27:56 UTC