- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:42:38 -0700
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org List" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Oct 22, 2013, at 14:38 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> By the way 'the open web' means generally the content that is linked into >> and accessible on the public internet, in contrast to the use of the same >> technologies used in internal (closed) networks or in other controlled >> environments (e.g. web offerings from an ISP to only its customers, and >> so on). > > I would say that DRM restricted content clearly falls into the category > of "other controlled environments." How is "from an ISP to only its > customers" different to, say, "to people running a specified operating > system, browser and proprietary binary blob"? Because it's linked from the open web, and unlike (for example) the internal network of a corporation, is accessible to anyone. They may not wish to pay, they may not wish to use the tools needed, of course, but those are *their* choices. >> 27.2 "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material >> interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production >> of which he is the author." >> >> Some of those making artistic production are unable to see how to protect >> their material interests from people who think that, because it is easily >> copied, all digital information is and ought to be free -- unless they >> protect that content. > > And that's perfectly fair; those people are free to pursue whatever DRM > technologies they like. I'm not arguing against their right to do so. > I have in fact written a commercial DRM system for Windows software. > > All I'm saying - and 27.2 above is irrelevant to this - that the W3C is > not the place for DRM. > >> and on the other side? That 'my preference' for open-source software >> should trump all other concerns and desires, for a start. > > Free, not open-source. There is a difference. But that's still > irrelevant to the discussion. Well, it seems to be the major objection; it underlies your definition of 'open', doesn't it? My company just announced a free operating system (OS X Mavericks). I rather thought that it doesn't meet your requirements -- that you want open-source, not free. Am I wrong? David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 21:43:05 UTC