Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 5/18/2014 10:21 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
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...
I'm glad you're sorry. I agree - you need to go back to primary school.
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!
Yes, I understand the difference. The license I grant you to use my
copyrighted material says what you MAY use it for. Of course, you CAN
use it for something else - but you will be in violation of the copyright.
...
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.
I'm not. What you describe is piracy.
You're also firmly aligned with copyright industry rhetoric. Oh well,
I seriously thought you were above that...
Unlike you, I am not above the law. And I have created intellectual
property in the past which is copyrighted (unlike you, obviously). And
I protect my copyrights.
I was trying to
be kind. But I see that is lost on you.
If that were so, you did indeed lost me :)
Obviously.
It might have been when logic went out the window... not sure, but
hey, who cares... I got lost, that's all that counts.
Logic has nothing to do with your arguments. You only think you should
be allowed to do whatever you want with what I spent my time and money
creating - even if you paid only a pittance for that product.
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?!?
If you violate my copyright, yes.
<caugh caugh>Control-freak...</caugh>
Nope. It's called the LAW. When you use my product, you AGREE to the
licensing conditions for that product. It does NOT give you the right
to do whatever you want with that product.
If you don't like the license, then don't use the product. But if you
agree to the license then violate it, you are a pirate and guilty of
piracy. And believe me - if I catch you, I WILL prosecute. And I
suggest you ask your attorney if you have a defense. You will find you
have NONE.
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...
Is that the only argument you can come up with?
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..
I understand logic. But you don't understand the LAW.
... 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
Good luck, Zenaan. Although you won't have a chance to violate any of
my copyrights (they are way above your level of competence), I hope no
one else catches you and prosecutes you.
Jerry
Reply to: