Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 16/05/14 02:13, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 15/05/14 12:51 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> 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
>
> Not quite. The presence of DRM doesn' mean the content requires
> payment.
Did I say that it did? (no). Is it relevant (no). BTWB?
> It just means that you can't use the content freely
So? I
> - not even for uses that copyright allows.
Oh really? Perhaps, when you can demonstrate a case you could sue
someone - might be more productive and less destructive than your
current campaign/recruiting drive.
> If major browsers don't
> support DRM then sites will have reasons to not use it. If all major
> browsers support it, then sites will have no reason to not use it.
Are you on drugs? Seriously?
Why don't you start with Microsoft? Or maybe Adobe?
Why don't you lobby Mozilla?
So your plan is first get Debian Users organised to somehow do what?
Help you email the Iceweasel team. Your tactics are even more
nonsensible than your reasoning (which has so far been wrong on every
point) make even less sense than your complaints. Perhaps you have
another agenda?
Regards
Reply to: