On 2014/01/14 18:30, Mark Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Emmanuel Revah <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2014/01/13 17:15, Mark Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Emmanuel Revah
<[email protected]>
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
