Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 5/18/2014 8:54 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
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'.
The law says otherwise. Those who invested their time (and money)
creating the content get to decide what is done with that.
Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.
Yes. Those who have spent their time and money have a "vested
interest". Consumers have none.
We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
of these interests are even recognized in law.
Actually, you have NO RIGHTS. You can do only what the content creators
say you can do.
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!
No, you don't. For instance, if you look at the license for DVD's made
for home use, it states you cannot use it for "public performances".
You can only use that at home.
You might not like that, so welcome to wake up and smell reality.
Exactly. Wake up and smell reality.
Copyright violations are rampant on the web.
Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.
OK, since you insist, I'll call it what it is - piracy. I was trying to
be kind. But I see that is lost on you.
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.
Piracy, for one thing.
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 the people who made the DVD worked harder and spent a lot more than
the few (your unit of currency) to product that DVD. But then if you're
willing to pay for all of the costs for making the DVD (including the
movie, of course), you could dictate the terms under which that DVD
could be used (and could use it for anything you want).
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.
Of course, depending on the license, that would make you a pirate.
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!
I have a right to control your private activities when you are using MY
CONTENT. If you want additional activities beyond the license, you can
pay for it.
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!
The law says otherwise.
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.
So is piracy. It is deprivation of income from the performance of that
song.
Go read the GPL (2) again!
Get a copyright attorney to give you GOOD advice. Not everything you
want is covered under GPL - including those cartoons you are copying
onto your kids' computers.
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
No fallacies, conflation or deceptions. It's called the LAW. That
trumps anything on debian-users (or anyplace else).
But then it's obvious you are an anarchist who doesn't believe authors
should be compensated for their work.
I'll have you know I have been involved in copyright disputes - from the
author end - with a couple of big corporations. And I have won every
one. No, IANAL. But I know my rights as an author.
And they do NOT allow you to do whatever you want with MY copyrighted
material.
Jerry
Reply to: