Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On 5/19/14, Lee Winter <lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> wrote:
>> On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale
>> <garydale@torfree.net<mailto:
>>> garydale@torfree.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course you are free from DRM. Just don't buy/install content that is
>>> restricted by DRM.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me
>>> from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. That is _their_ freedom in action. They are perfectly free to be
>>> as stupid as they want.
>>>
>>> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
>>> engineering, etc..
>>>
>>>
>>> Think of the DRM as part of their packaging. You aren't free to dictate
>>> to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship to you in
>>> green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.
>>>
>>> Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them. Or
>>> exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the DRM
>>> people about it in excruciating detail. Whining about DRM is both
>>> unsavory
>>> and unsatisfying.
>>>
>>> You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the
>>> law of gravity. Whose "fault" is that?
>>>
>>> Lee Winter
>>> Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
>>> United States of America
>>>
>>>
>>> If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
>> legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
>> packaging be changed.
>
>
> Correct. Andyou can demand that all day long from the content providers
> who use DRM. But your demands are just that: requests. Noeither you nor
> anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to accept andcomply with your
> demands.
>
> More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in ways
> other than the provider permits. Like Micros~1, they can require that you
> hold your mouth a certain way. Facing that requirement you are not free to
> violate it.
Actually you are free to violate it. It's the consequences that the
other party to the implied|whatever contract, may bring upon you, that
you are thereafter free to handle as you so choose (ignore and suffer,
pay a lawyer and suffer, present for yourself in court if the matter
goes to court, and suffer research and document preparation sufferance
cost).
But hey, try tellin that to Jerry :)
Reply to: