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