On 7/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/20/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The addition of the transcoding infrastructure alone would be a substantial project with substantial complexity...
IA has already got the infrastructure in place.
That isn't exactly the sort of infrastructure I was thinking of, but this is an interesting subject:
Indeed, they have a lot of transcoding infrastructure in place... Yet they don't offer their video content in free formats. They do offer four or five encumbered formats in many cases, but they seldom offer free formats at all.
It's certainly not that they haven't been asked to offer unencumbered formats.
I don't think it's wise of you to to hold up IA as example of something done right here, although I am glad you did because it makes my argument easier.
You have been advocating parallel distribution in free and non-free formats, an action which I and others have argued is inconsistent with our long-term mission social good, but it is an action which is at least worth discussion. But IA doesn't manage to even do this much.
The practice of providing proprietary formats only, or otherwise leaving free formats as second-class citizens, is exactly the sort of negative outcome that someone might use in a strawman argument against parallel distribution. Except in this case, it's not a strawman -- it's IA's actual behavior.
So, as you pitch using the IA as a way of achieving the future, please realize that you're showing us a future which doesn't live up to your claims and which epitomizes some of the fears of those who disagree with you.