Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 16/05/14 05:59, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 15/05/14 02:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> 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, Andrei
>>>>> I 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.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> Nonsense. 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.
Wrong.
How do you rip Disney encryption? Which of the 96 tracks do you go for?
>>> It just prevented legitimate owners of DVDs from taking their
>>> DVDs with them when they switched continents.
Wrong.
Region code (8-bits) is not part of Content Scrambling System.
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> This is why so many discussions degenerate into flame wars - people
> presenting ideas on topics they seem to have little knowledge.
How very insightful.
> I can, for example, quote anything presented publicly and post it
> online with critical comment
You exaggerate.
Not anything. There are limitations on "fair use" - and they vary from
country to country.
> - except if it is part of DRM-protected content. That's an example
> of fair use and how DRM restricts it.
Rubbish. I read reviews of blueray movies all the time. I read reviews
of articles that are behind paywalls.
>
> As for Flash, I note that for a long time it was the defacto standard
> for posting video despite being proprietary.
Yes. Java has been used for that as well - but the market has:-
woken up to the reality that third party software loses market
Adobe wants to keep a share of that market.
<snipped>
>
> If I'm a typical content provider, I'll put in DRM if I can be sure
> it won't interfere with my site's views. If only one browser
> supports DRM, I'll think twice before doing it.
> If you don't understand this reasoning, we have nothing more to talk
> about.
I understand the reasoning - I just don't agree with it, especially your
methods.
You don't want people to be able to use DRM, I want them to not use it
of their own free will. You think you're liberating people - I think
you're something else.
I'll hold you to the "nothing more to talk about" - but I won't hold my
breath - you've written nothing worth reading so far, the ban knives
speech is old.
Reply to: