By the way 'the open web' means generally the content that is linked into and accessible on the public internet, in contrast to the use of the same technologies used in internal (closed) networks or in other controlled environments (e.g. web offerings from an ISP to only its customers, and so on).
On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:44 , Duncan Bayne <[email protected]> wrote: >> This discussion resolutely stays stuck, in large part because many people >> cannot see that there is a balance here between competing desires and >> goals. > > .... whereas many other people beg the question (courtesy Wikipedia): > > "Begging the question ... is a type of informal fallacy in which an > implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, > basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or > demonstration as the conclusion itself." > > There are many assumptions being made on the part of the pro-DRM camp > here, including: > > - that it is the job of the W3C to strike a balance between the desires > and goals of its members, when some of those desires and goals are > inimical (sorry JF) to its goals and mission *including* trying to make it hard or impossible to include protected content in the open web (your broken broken record notwithstanding); that is also inimical to the open web. > - that because traditional 'big media' business models are threatened > by the Internet, it is the job of the W3C to protect them No-one is saying that. You might like to read the universal declaration of human rights, which say nothing at all about open-source software, but which do say: 27.2 "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." Some of those making artistic production are unable to see how to protect their material interests from people who think that, because it is easily copied, all digital information is and ought to be free -- unless they protect that content. > - that DRM is a mechanism for content protection, as opposed to a > mechanism for controlling player manufacturers (and I use that term > loosely, to include browser writers) That's what it is, indeed. and on the other side? That 'my preference' for open-source software should trump all other concerns and desires, for a start. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
