Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 16/05/14 03:46, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 15/05/14 01:33 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> 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
> You can't sue someone for not allowing something that copyright law
> allows. DVD and Bluray has shown that.
Huh? Is that a legal opinion?
I don't know that you can sue someone for not allowing something the
copyright law allows....(not counting "discrimination"). Nor can I
confidently say you can't sue (and win).
***********************************************************************
Please explain how DVD and/or Blueray "has shown that you can't sue
someone for not allowing something that copyright law allows". It sounds
like total bull.
***********************************************************************
>
> Your second issue is that you don't seem to understand the
> difference between all and some.
Wrong again. And you can't count - or you forgot to number my first
"issue". My only "issue" is with people who use falsehoods to try and
legitimise campaigns of disruption and dissension - especially when they
don't make their complaints the right way, to the right parties.
Your issue is that you ignore what contradicts your justifications and
invent more of them.
> If browsers that have a major market share don't support something,
Not all? Just some huh? I thought that was *my* (second) "issue" - the
inability to differentiate between some and all...?
> then it won't be used as much as something that all major browsers
> support.
So it follows that if a browser won't do as much as other browsers it'll
lose it's userbase. Great plan.
> Mozilla has joined Microsoft on the dark side.
Then by all means *you* don't have to use Iceweasel or Firefox. It's bad
enough listening the bullying demands of "users" make of volunteer
developers to add features without having to listen to bullying by
"users" wanting to remove features.
I presume you don't use DVDs and Blueray either - that thing about them
denying your copyright rights (which I'll be real interested to see if
you expand on instead of ignoring like anything else you don't want to
address).
> Debian doesn't have to join them.
Debian doesn't have to join any mythical alliance - especially the one
that exists only in your imagination.
Regards
Reply to: