Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.
I don't know if you are intentionally thick or if you are genuinely
not understanding what I'm saying. I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt this time, and try again:
Those who (...whatever...) create content get to decide HOW THEY
DISTRIBUTE or otherwise SELL that content.
No more. No less.
Once it's on my computer, on in my brain, it's mine. I can do with it
as I choose, and within the limits of my capacity.
Feel free to deny logic as much as you want though...
>> 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.
Ahh that's right, of course, I forgot, consumers have no vested
interest, they put in no time, no money, nothing.
How silly of me.
And the law backs your position up too.
God I'm silly! What was I thinking. Guess I better go back to primary school...
sorry for wasting everyone's time...
>> 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.
I'm guessing you never quite understood the difference between "can"
and "may". But hey ... COME ON DOWN SPINNER! The Debian Derby
continues, and everyone's a winner, baby!
...
>>> 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 didn't think you were _such_ a contrarian. Proved me wrong.
You're also firmly aligned with copyright industry rhetoric. Oh well,
I seriously thought you were above that...
> I was trying to
> be kind. But I see that is lost on you.
If that were so, you did indeed lost me :)
It might have been when logic went out the window... not sure, but
hey, who cares... I got lost, that's all that counts.
>>> 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).
Dictate what you like Jerry, it doesn't stop me in my home ... you
gotta problem wi-dat?!?
<caugh caugh>Control-freak...</caugh>
>> 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.
Aarrrgghh me laddies, pull out yer cutlasses ... the good ship
Mickey-Mouse Act has come to haaarrr-bour and Disney gonna eat yerrr
childrennnnnn...
>>> 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.
You still don't understand logic. Feel free to try again though..
... lots more o' the same...
> No fallacies, conflation or deceptions. It's called the LAW.
> trumps anything on debian-users (or anyplace else).
... and even more o' the same...
Good luck Jerry, I hope you find peace bro,
Zenaan
Reply to: