Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> 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.
In fact you are wrong!
Content consumers get to choose how they 'consume content'.
Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.
We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
of these interests are even recognized in law.
Once I buy a DVD, _I_ get to decide how that DVD is used. If you sell
it to me, you get jack shit of a choice over my actions thereafter!
You might not like that, so welcome to wake up and smell reality.
> Copyright violations are rampant on the web.
Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.
> If there were no problem, DRM would not be required.
Please, do speak of the 'problem' that is in your mind. I'm genuinely curious.
> People deserve to protect what they worked
> hard (and often paid) for.
I worked hard to earn those dollars to buy my DVD. Yes I have a right
to protect my DVD and my viewing of that DVD. I have a right to look
after and enrich my children and spouse too, so I'm going to let them
watch my hard-earned DVD too!
And if it's a cartoon DVD, I'll put a copy on my children's computer
so they can watch it over and over.
> Just because it's there does not mean you have a
> right to use it as you see fit.
Just because _you_ think you have a right to control my private
activities does not make it so!
Just because _you_ think you have a right to arbitrary copyright
monopoly power which is against the natural growth of a community's
popular culture, does not make it so!
> Try using a car that was parked on the street, just because it
> was there. See how far you get.
Deprivation of goods is deprivation. Re-performance of a song, does
not deprive you of that song.
Go read the GPL (2) again!
And please, for your own dignity's sake, stop using these old logical
fallacies, conflation and deception to try to make your point. The
crown here on debian-user is most likely more educated than most of
congress combined. You will have to try better than that in these
parts.
Zenaan
Reply to: