On 15/05/14 14:27, Gary Dale wrote:
On 14/05/14 11:23 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 15/05/14 13:09, Gary Dale wrote:
The FSF has just let everyone know that Mozilla and Adobe have signed a
deal to support DRM in Firefox.
So did Mozilla - in fact they've been letting everyone know for the last
year. Hardly a secret.
I trust that it will be removed in
Iceweasel.
DRM support in Firefox/Iceweasel doesn't make the web proprietary, lack
of DRM support in Firefox/Iceweasel makes them partial web browsers.
Cut off nose to spite face much?
Tim Berners-Lee and many others support *implementing* DRM. They don't
support DRM and neither does Mozilla - they'd prefer watermarking.
Kind regards
I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
provide content that uses DRM.
Yes. That's the point of Adobes product. I don't support the product but
I understand the demand. Many sites are monetized. Many site owners
believe they own words and can demand (or refuse to accept) royalties
for the use of their words (though they're in no hurry to pay
Shakespeare's descendants the same respects). Adobe would like to market
the DRM for use with video and audio - but the main demand is for word
and image content (and it's a waste of energy).
Many site owners rightfully distrust the various anti-plaguizism
products on the market (and most site administrators hate their sites
being crawled by bots from those vapour-ware anti-plagerism sites).
Adobe (and others) are trying to monetise those (lost possibly potential
earnings) concerns.
Trying to stop that is like lobbying for laws against bad thoughts or
King Kanute demanding the tide halt. Stupid, pointless, and childish.
Grow up. If you don't like the system because it doesn't work - make it
work instead of demanding people cut off their noses so they don't smell
the stupid.
If a site implements DRM and you don't like it - don't use the site.
Vote with your wallet instead of trying to pretend brown shirts and jack
boots aren't the dress code for fascism. The issue is no different than
paywalls for newspapers - they failed not because of protest but because
*no one wants to pay*.
Watermarking would be a better method of allowing site owners to claim
and control their content - but the industry (and people like you) are
opposed to that. For all the wrong reasons. Instead we get DRM - no more
effective in HTML than with any other media - but the buyers don't know
that.
The alternative of course, is closed web*s*. Which many companies would
love (AOL and others).
After all, if every browser supports it,
why not use it?
That's about the dumbest thing I've read. And I've read comments on
Youtube. (and not every browser does, or will support it).
By that logic we'd all be murderers, rapists and thieves. We could be,
it'd be to our immediate benefit, but we aren't.
I've got a 8-track player and a Beta video recorder - when should I
expect to see new titles for them on the market? Demand doesn't equal
supply. Capacity doesn't equal supply either.
Debian is based on freedom.
Yes.
Freedom to choose.
Free will - have you heard of the concept? Or is that redundant in the
new world where someone will tell me what to think and ensure laws and
protests against bad weather and sharp corners on furniture?
Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
proprietary parts.
No. I saw what you did there.
Iceweasel is Firefox without proprietary restrictions.
To not remove digital restrictions support undermines
a major strength of Debian.
Your logic is false.
Will you be demanding the removal of encryption?
If people want DRM,
They have it. Like Flash.
It's up to them if they want to make use of it.
they can always download
Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
Then lobby for the removal of all browser bar lynx. All others allow
people to have their freedom restricted with java, proprietary image and
audio formats, javascript and Fffflash. Until then you have zero
credibility.
Kind regards