When I read W3C arguments, I read everywhere “protected content”. What is this? Mockery? That is just propaganda to try to tip the scales towards the wishes of the industry. Why don’t they say “paid content”? Web content is there to be seen. Content needs not to be protected in any way.<\/p>\n
To state it plainly open: the proposal’s goal has nothing to do with interoperability and the user needs. They want to save money hooking their DRM privative software to an html standard rather than keeping updating their current DRM costly platforms. This way, browser sellers will be forced to implement the damn hook. That’s is the whole thing.<\/p>\n
So why all this futile chat? Most of the wrecked working group is filled with interested parts. The very group editors are people from Microsoft, Google, Apple and the lot. What’s this? A joke? LOL They’ve already decided it for all of us.<\/p>\n
Ordinary people doesn’t understand what is actually happening here and they are busy sleeping their lives as ever. We should consider it done. Enough blabering.<\/p>\n
Sorry for my rant \ud83d\ude41<\/p>\n
Best regards.<\/p>\n
Julio Serrano<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When I read W3C arguments, I read everywhere “protected content”. What is this? Mockery? That is just propaganda to try to tip the scales towards the wishes of the industry. Why don’t they say “paid content”? Web content is there … Continue reading