Obviously I support keeping the web open to feature additions and I don't want
to censure any discussion of features.
However, DRM is not a typical 'feature'. It has the characteristic of blocking
other features under the threat of persecution. Let's call it a mis-feature.
I know some members of this group object to even adding a 'do-not-copy' flag -
it could legally constrain browser vendors. There is a class of 'misfeatures'
that we could define.
How can a group open to the discussion of features also be open to mis-features
that taint all discussions and still all get along? I suggest we will need to
exclude the mis-features, that we will need to exclude DRM, in the web from the
group. The proponents of mis-features might retort that we are hypocrites
censuring their 'features'[sic] when we espouse open discussion. What other
options are there? Help me out here?
Note 'discussion' is being used to include preparing and promoting specs and
distributing user agents etc. It would have been clearer to separate
'discussion' from promoting specific paths but this is the way Tim has chosen
to frame the work of the web ecosystem.
The issue at hand is not the development of technical solutions to problems, or
the search for a technically 'better' solution. The solution space has been
confined to supporting client side restrictions on use by the publishers, and
to being part of the web by Tim and the W3C, and the people being redirected
here seek solutions in which the discussion of web features is still open
(excludes mis-features) and in which DRM is not part of the web - the solution
space is empty.
The work on the EME proceeds - I suggest that a problem that the DRM-Web
proponents are working on includes the plausible reconstruction of the web to
be compatible with DRM, a political problem, and that keeping this group open
as-is advances their interests and not the interests of many people being
redirected here.
So what ideas do you have to help us all get along in our open discussion that
is the web ecosystem?
cheers
Fred
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:45:42 +0900
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this
> community group
>
>
> Le 10 janv. 2014 à 10:29, Fred Andrews <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > We can start a new group
>
> No need.
>
> > and make a fresh start exploring alternative approaches such as water
> > marking, or using web intents to redirect DRM content to an alternative
> > device,
>
> Provoke change by positive discussions and technical solutions. Do propose
> stuff please. Write document explaining how it is working. Create
> implementations. Experimentations. 1 million yes.
>
> > and we can control the scope of discussion to poison it from being used by
> > Tim and the W3C to support their position on the principles of the web
> > which we dispute.
>
> Censorship is never a good start. The discussion _is_ open. The proof is that
> nobody censored you, even being opposed myself to DRM, I find, personally,
> your emails not helping at all with finding better alternatives.
>
> --
> Karl Dubost 🐄
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
>
>
