Re: Need for culture access with non-mainstream OSes (was Re: Campaign...)

On 2014/01/14 18:30, Mark Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014/01/13 17:15, Mark Watson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Emmanuel Revah
>> <stsil@manurevah.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2014/01/11 23:27, Mark Watson wrote:
>> [...]
>> 
>> There are content owners who require such a 'black box' today and
>> the
>> reach of their content is limited to platforms that support that
>> capability today. So, (legal) access to that content is not
>> available
>> on some platforms today. That situation will continue, based on
>> the
>> economics, as you say, irrespective of what W3C does. W3C
>> recommendations are not what cause that effect, now or in the
>> future.
>> 
>> Does this mean that the values/standards endorsed by the W3C should
>> be changed to reflect what is happening on the market rather than
>> be
>> a set of standards with its own principles and goals ?
> 
>  No, I didn't say that.
> 
>  Then I have no idea what you were trying to say.
> 
> That DRM is and will continue to be used to restrict access to content
> to platforms that meet the robustness requirements of the content
> providers and that this is not and will not be caused or affected by
> anything that W3C does. And then, that this fact should not be an
> impediment to W3C standardizing improved technical solutions and that
> making such improvements for users of the web is not inconsistent with
> the values / goals of the W3C.
>  
> 
>> You say that the web will use DRM regardless of what the W3C does.
>> I get that and I'm not arguing that (I don't think anyone is).
>> If you are not using that statement as a reason for the W3C to
>> adjust their values to what the web does then what are you saying by
>> this ?
> 
>  No, I'm saying that the improvements for web users we expect to get
> from EME are consistent with the W3C values / goals.
>  
> 
>> This is a sincere question, I've seen this argument many times
>> before on this list "The web will use DRM regardless of W3C
>> recommendations". That's certainly very true, but how does this
>> justify that DRM should be in context of W3C recommendations ?  Or
>> how is this statement supposed to be relevant ?
> 
> I'm saying, again, that we should compare the world as t would be with
> W3C recommendations as we have proposed with the world as it would be
> without such recommendations and ask whether the *difference* between
> these two situations is something consistent with W3C values / goals.
> Anything that remains the same between these two outcomes is
> irrelevant to the discussion.


I don't see how what you are saying is not "The W3C should adjust it's 
values to what the web wants/does".

I think that the following is clear:

- DRM has been on the web for a while
- DRM will most likely continue to be present, regardless of what the 
W3C recommends

If the web choses to publish according to values that aren't consistent 
with the W3C then it doesn't mean that the W3C should change their 
principles.


Instead of going in circles, explain how EME is in line with the current 
W3C goals. And again, please stop telling us about how "DRM is here to 
stay regardless" and things like "DRM makes the world a better place", 
those arguments, true or false, are not relevant to this discussion.


This would be similar to Monsanto asking that their products get the 
"Organic" label because they consider GMO products to be the answer to 
many issues (world hunger, ensuring the seed owner doesn't get stolen 
from, insert other valid and invalid points). It doesn't matter, because 
GMO, good or bad, is still not "Organic".


DRM, good or bad, is not coherent with the W3's mission: 
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission

I get that you disagree, but at least argue on topic. It is getting very 
tiring and discouraging and some of us here post to this list in their 
free time.
Actually I think this "thread" is over for me, I've said what I wanted 
to say.



Cheers,



-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 06:26:57 UTC