Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> 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. 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
You need to comprehend the difference between jurisprudential law and
common law (aka community law), and mind yourself of the fact that
jurisprudential law (shock horror) actually changes over time (as does
common law for that matter).
And there is a vast difference between common law as being common
sense and accepted mores of society, vs common law as 'the balance of
what's left over after statute, as modified and interpreted by judges'
(which is what the courts like to limit common law to).
> 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
Oh wow. Centuries of jurisdprudence on linking to an image or article.
That's awesome. Was that, back in past centuries - an _alien_ internet?
> 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.
Next you'll be saying, when we have the
image-in-brain-to-digital-recording copying machine, that you have
'control' (by force of government) to stop me thinking certain
thoughts - the thoughts of those images on your website that I'm no
longer allowed to think about.
Bring it on!
> 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".
This is a logical statement which I agree with. This a part of common
sense which many people miss. But similarly, it is common sense that I
have freedom within the domain of my own house, to with _your_
(so-called) images as I like. My 'house' extends to my friends.
Like it or not, _you_ have no control over that!
Statute artificial monopoly copyright law or not, _you_ have no
control over that!
Statements of right and wrong, freedom or otherwise, _you_ have no
control over that!
By my will do I.
Do I by my will.
Get used to it. Or not. I don't care.
Zenaan
Reply to: