On 5/15/2014 1:53 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 15/05/14 01:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to provide content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why not use it? Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained proprietary parts.Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable. Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not) must be the choice of the user. Kind regards, AndreiI disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the open nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's the choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.As it should be. The site owners own the content, and they get to decide what is being done with it. Copyright violations are rampant on the web. If there were no problem, DRM would not be required. People deserve to protect what they worked hard (and often paid) for. Just because it's there does not mean you have a right to use it as you see fit. Try using a car that was parked on the street, just because it was there. See how far you get. JerryNonsense. There is the concept of fair use. No right is nor should be unlimited. DRM throws centuries of jurisprudence out the window. DRM exists not because of copyright violation but because people can get away with it. DVD's CSS for example never prevented anyone from making a copy of a DVD. It just prevented legitimate owners of DVDs from taking their DVDs with them when they switched continents.
You need to look up the meaning of "fair use". It does not, for instance, allow you to post a copy of an article on my web page - or even link to an image on my web page - without my permission.
And this has been supported by "centuries of jurisprudence". DRM does nothing to change that. If the owner of the copyright doesn't want the item used, he/she can implement DRM to protect it. If he/she doesn't care, he/she does not need to implement DRM.
And the claim that "if all browsers support DRM, everyone will use it" is completely bogus. For instance, all browsers (at least all of the major ones) support Java applets and Flash. But not everyone uses them. In fact, very few do - even though, according to your thinking, "they have no reason not to".
Jerry