On 1/10/2014 6:28 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
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?
Long ago I proposed that we work on a soft-DRM system that is breakable
(hence less secure) and then sell it to content owners as the right
approach. I believe it was attacked by content owners as not being
protective enough of content, and by free software advocates as not
worth the time. I'm still looking to build a community around such a
solution.
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/
>
>
