- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:44:59 -0700
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> I think you are missing all the ways that having for-sale content linked > into the open web, and using web technologies for their presentation > layer, benefit everyone. Again with the broken record, but: DRM content is, by definition, not part of the open web. Look at the W3C mission & goals. It is perfectly possible, with existing technologies, to link to DRM content. > This discussion resolutely stays stuck, in large part because many people > cannot see that there is a balance here between competing desires and > goals. .... whereas many other people beg the question (courtesy Wikipedia): "Begging the question ... is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself." There are many assumptions being made on the part of the pro-DRM camp here, including: - that it is the job of the W3C to strike a balance between the desires and goals of its members, when some of those desires and goals are inimical (sorry JF) to its goals and mission - that because traditional 'big media' business models are threatened by the Internet, it is the job of the W3C to protect them - that DRM is a mechanism for content protection, as opposed to a mechanism for controlling player manufacturers (and I use that term loosely, to include browser writers) - that once something has been defined as in-scope, that decision can't be reversed -- 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 19:45:23 UTC