On 1/15/2014 1:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
Mark Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
And, again, we are interested in getting a good technical
specification that is interoperably implemented as widely as
possible, and not in getting some kind of political statement from
the W3C about DRM. Can we have one without the other ? Given it's
membership, getting such a statement - in either direction - seems
unlikely and is IMO unnecessary.
Well when the Internet governance ecosystem is such that the Internet
governance institutions are unwilling or unwilling to make political
any decisions --not even political decision that are in fact logical
consequences of their own principles--
I think this means that W3C is unwilling to make decisions about EME.
I don't think this is accurate.
W3C has made a decision that content protection is within scope for HTML.
W3C has not made a decision about the EME spec because it is still an
early draft. When the WG completes its work it will come to the
Director for approval and we will make a decision (one way or the other).
The phrase "not even political decision that are in fact logical
consequences of their own principles" I think means that W3C is
unwilling to revoke its decision that content protection is within scope
even though it must - based on its principles.
But the W3C Director has argued in a blog post why content protection is
not opposed to W3C principles.
http://www.w3.org/blog/2013/10/on-encrypted-video-and-the-open-web/
It is not that W3C is unwilling to make decisions or be consistent with
its principles, it is just that W3C interprets its principles
differently than others do.
that will tend to serve the
interests of those who are economically powerful just fine, while
advocates for other perspectives, including public interest
perspectives, are effectively sidelined.
This is not how things are supposed to work in democratic societies.
Greetings,
Norbert
