Content-Type: text/plain
debian-user-digest Digest Volume 2014 : Issue 629
Today's Topics:
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Re: FSF condemns partnership between [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Re: FSF condemns partnership between [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Re: FSF condemns partnership between [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Re: set higher verbosity in exim4 ou [ Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> ]
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> ]
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> ]
Re: FSF condemns partnership between [ Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> ]
Re: How to remote login Debian Gnome [ Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> ]
Multiboot issue [ John Lindsay <jclindsay@kw.igs.net> ]
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> ]
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> ]
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Re: Iceweasel and DRM [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Re: FSF condemns partnership between [ Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen. ]
Re: FSF condemns partnership between [ Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.n ]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:08:36 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379E634.3090903@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379E634.3090903@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 5/19/2014 4:12 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 19 May 2014 03:50:38 Lee Winter wrote:
>> Note that the _statutory_ penalty for a purposeful violation of copyright
>> law is USD$150,000.00 plus fees and legal costs. Per violation.
>
> ***In the ***United States***. This is an international list.
>
Yes, and the vast majority of countries (including the United States)
has accepted the Berne Convention, which is similar to the U.S.
(although penalties are not).
>> Are you really going to admit in this public forum that you regularly
>> violate copyright law on purpose?
>
> Maybe he lives somewhere where it is legal.
>
> Lisi
>
>
Please tell us what country has no copyright laws. I don't know of any.
Jerry
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:11:35 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379E6E7.3010408@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379E6E7.3010408@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 5/18/2014 11:15 PM, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 19/05/14 14:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> But if I catch you violating my copyright, I will have everything you own.
>
> I don't think the law goes quite that far ...
>
Maybe not if you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. But I can get a lot.
More than most people have.
> BTW I'd also like to see evidence for what law prevents linking to
> someone else's work.
>
Who said anything about preventing linking? I never did.
> Overall, though, this argument seems fairly pointless, since you're both
> deliberately talking at cross-purposes: Jerry is talking about using the
> law to fight, while Zenaan is talking about fighting the law. Both are
> useful in different (and probably sometimes the same) circumstances.
>
> Richard
>
>
Yes, and I have used the law to fight violations of my copyrights. And won.
The law is there for a purpose. Remember, those of us who make a living
off of our intellectual property like to eat, also.
Jerry
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:19:20 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
Digital Restrictions Management
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379E8B8.6050507@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379E8B8.6050507@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 5/19/2014 4:31 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 19/05/14 14:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 5/18/2014 9:47 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
>>> On 20140518_2131-0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
>>>>>> because it enables copyright holders.
>>>>>
>>>>> DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
>>>>> nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
>>>>> and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
>>>>> and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country
>>>> under which the item is copyrighted. But typically it is either 75
>>>> years from the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of the
>>>> owner (author) of the copyrighted material. Both are much longer
>>>> than the Internet has existed.
>>>>
>>>>> If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
>>>>> DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
>>>>> anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
>>>>> copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
>>>>> so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
>>>>> likely, be the former holder of the copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
>>>>> far beyond just objections to copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please show an example where that has occurred.
>>>
>>> Please show an example of a digital recording that was copyrighted 75 yrs
>>> ago. It is a silly request, I know. But no less silly than yours.
>>
>> Not silly at all. But there are may of them. The works of Shakespeare,
>> among others, are much older than 75 years, and have now entered the
>> public domain. And they have been digitized.
>>
>> Jerry
>
> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any)
> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright has now
> lapsed?
>
> Richard
>
>
Richard,
That's true - it would be more relevant.
Jerry
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:20:02 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
Digital Restrictions Management
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379E8E2.9050709@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379E8E2.9050709@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 5/19/2014 4:43 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 5/19/14, Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:
>> On 19/05/14 14:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2014 9:47 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
>>>> On 20140518_2131-0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
>>>>>> If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
>>>>>> anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
>>>>>> copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
>>>>>> so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
>>>>>> likely, be the former holder of the copyright.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM
>>>>>> go
>>>>>> far beyond just objections to copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please show an example where that has occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Please show an example of a digital recording that was copyrighted 75
>>>> yrs
>>>> ago. It is a silly request, I know. But no less silly than yours.
>>>
>>> Not silly at all. But there are may of them. The works of Shakespeare,
>>> among others, are much older than 75 years, and have now entered the
>>> public domain. And they have been digitized.
>>
>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any)
>> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright has now
>> lapsed?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law
>
>
Which doesn't answer the question. Just another straw man argument.
Jerry
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:20:39 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
Digital Restrictions Management
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379E907.3090609@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379E907.3090609@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 5/19/2014 6:08 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 5/19/14, Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:
>> On 19/05/14 20:43, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any)
>>>>> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright has now
>>>>> lapsed?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law
>>
>> Isn't that the reverse? Mickey Mouse, when first released was not
>> subject to DRM, and copyright (due to the above law) has not lapsed.
>
> Yes. Exactly. And the point being, the copyright moguls achieve
> endless extensions due to their parliamentary $ influence, so there's
> a good chance you will never get such an example as the one you ask
> for - due to ever-increasing copyright extensions.
>
> At least, in the good ole U.S of A.
>
>
Whether you like it or not, that is the law. Period.
Jerry
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:30:23 -0400
From: Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: set higher verbosity in exim4 output
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87mwee80q8.fsf@newsguy.com">[🔎] 87mwee80q8.fsf@newsguy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> writes:
> There is an implication here that you think exim (or sendmail) is to be
> manipulated directly. That is not the case. It is a daemon which listens
> and which deals with mail *which is sent from a client*. The client
> interacts with Debian's exim and exim, if the setup is sane, processes
> the message. The transaction is recorded in /var/log/exim4/mainlog.
I'm not interested in whether exim, sendmail or postfix are what I
need. I don't know for sure and don't care right now. I'm attempting
to get setup with exim.
Are any of them meant to be manipulated directly ? YES. Each one has
some technique for direct manipulation when attempting to locate
problems. Is that an intended method to uncover problems YES in all
three cases.
Is the general use pattern expected to be direct manipulation... NO.
What does that have to do with my question? I'm not asking about
general use patterns.
So again, my question is fairly straight forward... how can I
manipulate exim directly from the command line, and increase the
verbosity level of that mail handling program?
If you know the answer to that, and I assume you do since you did say
that examples abound ... I cannot find a single one of what I
asked about.
Perhaps you know of many and can provide a specific url or pointer?
PS - I have already gone thru every step you laid out except all the
needless uninstalling and installing.
Went thru the config... I can not tell from log output why my mail is
not sent or delivered. I want to see more verbose output of the smtp
conversation at the smart host.
This kind of output is not very helpful:
reader > delivering 1WmLdz-0002JS-5L
R: smarthost for hput3@fastmail.fm
T: remote_smtp_smarthost for hput3@fastmail.fm
LOG: retry_defer MAIN
== hput3@fastmail.fm R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost defer
(-53): retry time not reached for any host
or the mainlog outpout:
2014-05-19 07:26:28 1WmLha-0002Jl-7o == hput3@fastmail.fm
R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost defer (-53): retry time not
reached for any host
2014-05-19 07:26:28 1WmESz-0001Pb-KN == hput3@fastmail.fm
R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost defer (-53): retry time not
reached for any host
2014-05-19 07:26:28 1WmET8-0001Ph-Oa == hput3@fastmail.fm
R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost defer (-53): retry time not
reached for any host
2014-05-19 07:26:28 1WmLdz-0002JS-5L == hput3@fastmail.fm
R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost defer (-53): retry time not
reached for any host
2014-05-19 07:26:28 1WmEYb-0001VW-VF == hput3@fastmail.fm
R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost defer (-53): retry time not
reached for any host
2014-05-19 07:26:28 End queue run: pid=9206
2014-05-19 07:26:45 1WmLiP-0002Oi-Ru <= reader@vd.local.lan
U=reader P=local S=539
2014-05-19 07:26:45 1WmLiP-0002Oi-Ru == hput3@fastmail.fm
R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost defer (-53): retry time not
reached for any host
There seems to be little or nothing there that explains what has
happened at the smarthost... in enough detail.
If anyone knows how to manage any of what I asked about ... please
respond.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 20:33:37 +0900
From: Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>
To: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
Cc: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <[🔎] CAAr43iPvKsf+vt8Mx0mMrduG89nag9jzdk24BfDOBx0yN95zsw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2014 10:26 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>
>> On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't care. But if I catch you violating my copyright,
>>> I will have everything you own.
>>
>>
>> Jerry.
>>
>> You speak loudly.
>>
>> Zenaan
>>
>>
>
> And truthfully. Ask your attorney.
>
> Jerry
My attorney says your interpretation of the legal support for
licensing is viewed by the courts as going beyond what the courts
recognize and what the DMCA, even, allows.
Significantly beyond, even in the current legal climate of having to
bow to the content creators.
Content creators who seem to forget that they do not create in a
vacuum, and who often forget their legal obligation of attribution,
among many other things.
Just because you can write a program doesn't somehow grant you the
right that it should run.
Likewise, just because you can write a license doesn't somehow grant
you the right to enforce every term you put in it.
I'm not sure why you are being so extreme in your assertions, but your
bluster undermines your argument. And it doesn't encourage anyone to
respect the terms of licenses.
Perhaps that's your purpose, to undermine the creditability of content licenses?
--
Joel Rees
Computer memory is nothing but fancy paper,
and the CPU and IO devices are nothing but fancy pens.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 20:37:46 +0900
From: Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>
To: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
Cc: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <CAAr43iMk_+BSr1GBJJZ=e9PiK26tPxRZ1POgCT9-EYvcp1WD6g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
> [...] he's a bit of a time-bomb and carries an intense anger or
> something about him, [...]
Oh, he's not always a time-bomb.
Don't know what's got his back up today.
--
Joel Rees
Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:39:35 +0200
From: Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
Digital Restrictions Management
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379ED77.7040407@rail.eu.org">[🔎] 5379ED77.7040407@rail.eu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Le 19/05/2014 13:20, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
> On 5/19/2014 6:08 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:
>>> On 19/05/14 20:43, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any)
>>>>>> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright
>>>>>> has now
>>>>>> lapsed?
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law
>>>
>>> Isn't that the reverse? Mickey Mouse, when first released was not
>>> subject to DRM, and copyright (due to the above law) has not lapsed.
>>
>> Yes. Exactly. And the point being, the copyright moguls achieve
>> endless extensions due to their parliamentary $ influence, so there's
>> a good chance you will never get such an example as the one you ask
>> for - due to ever-increasing copyright extensions.
>>
>> At least, in the good ole U.S of A.
>>
>>
>
> Whether you like it or not, that is the law. Period.
>
> Jerry
>
>
1) One can say that one disapprove a law, it's called democracy
2) When lawmakers are paid to orient what they do this is usually called
corruption.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:40:59 +0400
From: Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: How to remote login Debian Gnome from another Debian Gnome
machine or Windows machine?
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20140519114057.GA7843@x101h>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:18:20PM +0800, 釋淨明 wrote:
> Thank you Reco! I'm able to remote login A from B by using the default gnome desktop sharing and client, but the problem is if I restart A, than B won't be
> able to remote login, saying "A is closed", do you know how to solve it?
Please:
1) Do not top-post. It is considered bad manners here.
2) Do not CC me. I'm subscribed to the list.
As for your question:
There is not easy way to solve this problem as 'vino' is intended to
shut down as user's session is closed.
Reco
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:10:32 -0400
From: John Lindsay <jclindsay@kw.igs.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Multiboot issue
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379E6A8.8010207@kw.igs.net">[🔎] 5379E6A8.8010207@kw.igs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I posted the following on the Multisystem site but have received no
replies as yet so I'll try here since I have learned a lot about Debian
and Linux by following this list and even asking for help on some things.
Anyway, I installed Multisystem following the instructions on this web site
http://www.webupd8.org/2010/03/how-to-create-multiboot-liveusb-using.html
It worked great and I was able to create a multiple distro USB stick. I
tried it in a virtual window and each one seemed to work fine. I tried
it on an older Dell laptop and found a couple of Distros had issues with
the laptop. I wanted to remove those Distros and add a couple of
different one so I opened up Multisystem (accessories ---> multisystem)
and get the following pop up error message:
> Error: Unable to delete: bin
> boot
> build_day
> dev
> etc
> image
> include
> init
> .kconfig
> lib
> linuxrc
> mnt
> opt
> plymouth.splash.active
> preinit
> proc
> .profile
> root
> run
> sbin
> selinux
> sys
> tmp
> usr
> var
Short of using synaptics to remove it and then reinstalling can anyone
shed some light on how to fix this?
Thanks
John
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:42:58 +1000
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <CAOsGNSSWLA-95V-3G2-aQ5nRoyLWw7PYuccR6S47e7Z9R=zFAA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2014 11:15 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> endless pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo
>
> The law.
Well that ought only be relevant to you if you had something
intellectual to actually protect. Like say a trademark, patent or
copyright.
I'm hopeful...
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 20:43:20 +0900
From: Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>
To: gary@extremeground.com
Cc: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <[🔎] CAAr43iM-sXJOKogJYTKyW8sTSP9Pd+yj2Qrxn7kyjWwtK2OXFA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> wrote:
> On 18/05/14 08:42 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> So Gary, how do we handle this problem of lack of educated thinkers?
>> Cause that's the real problem as I see it.
>>
>> Regards
>> Zenaan
>
> That problem is not solvable, I'm afraid. That's why people who do think
> about issues have a duty to speak up about them. Stallman's GPL is a case in
> point. A work of true genius, it tries to keep things free.
Sure it is.
But then you have to keep solving it again and again.
Thus, flamewars.
And, yes, thus the GPL for our generation. (Unfortunately, the lawyers
are already watering it down in the courts, but there we are again.
Which is why we have to have freedom of speech. Which is the yang for
copyright ying.)
--
Joel Rees
Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:48:17 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379EF81.8060803@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379EF81.8060803@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 5/19/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees wrote:>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:31
AM, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2014 10:26 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't care. But if I catch you violating my copyright,
>>>> I will have everything you own.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jerry.
>>>
>>> You speak loudly.
>>>
>>> Zenaan
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And truthfully. Ask your attorney.
>>
>> Jerry
>
> My attorney says your interpretation of the legal support for
> licensing is viewed by the courts as going beyond what the courts
> recognize and what the DMCA, even, allows.
>
My attorney disagrees - and two cases I brought to protect my copyrights
confirm my attorney is correct.
> Significantly beyond, even in the current legal climate of having to
> bow to the content creators.
>
Not in the United States.
> Content creators who seem to forget that they do not create in a
> vacuum, and who often forget their legal obligation of attribution,
> among many other things.
>
It depends on what you create, and if there is any attribution
necessary. Just because you create something does not mean there is
attribution required.
> Just because you can write a program doesn't somehow grant you the
> right that it should run.
>
I never said it did.
> Likewise, just because you can write a license doesn't somehow grant
> you the right to enforce every term you put in it.
>
Unless there is something in the license which violates the law, I can
enforce every term I put in it. That is because YOU have accepted the
terms of the license when using my material. YOUR AGREEMENT makes the
license completely enforceable.
> I'm not sure why you are being so extreme in your assertions, but your
> bluster undermines your argument. And it doesn't encourage anyone to
> respect the terms of licenses.
>
> Perhaps that's your purpose, to undermine the creditability of
content licenses?
>
Nope. It is to point out what copyright law protects. Some people
think just because they got a copy of something they can do anything
they want with it. That is definitely not true.
And I am arguing FOR the terms of the license. And if you don't like
the license, don't use the material. It's easy.
Jerry
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:49:53 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Iceweasel and DRM
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379EFE1.8030603@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379EFE1.8030603@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 5/19/2014 7:42 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2014 11:15 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> endless pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo
>>
>> The law.
>
> Well that ought only be relevant to you if you had something
> intellectual to actually protect. Like say a trademark, patent or
> copyright.
>
> I'm hopeful...
>
>
I do. Both trademarks and copyrights. And I do protect them.
Jerry
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:50:25 +1200
From: Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
Digital Restrictions Management
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379F001.3020007@walnut.gen.nz">[🔎] 5379F001.3020007@walnut.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 19/05/14 23:20, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/19/2014 6:08 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:
>>> On 19/05/14 20:43, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any)
>>>>>> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright has
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> lapsed?
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law
>>>
>>> Isn't that the reverse? Mickey Mouse, when first released was not
>>> subject to DRM, and copyright (due to the above law) has not lapsed.
>>
>> Yes. Exactly. And the point being, the copyright moguls achieve
>> endless extensions due to their parliamentary $ influence, so there's
>> a good chance you will never get such an example as the one you ask
>> for - due to ever-increasing copyright extensions.
>>
>> At least, in the good ole U.S of A.
>>
>>
>
> Whether you like it or not, that is the law. Period.
Jerry - I was attempting to improve on the question Paul asked you.
Can you suggest an example of a recording that was released with DRM for
which the copyright has now expired?
This is to address the issue of whether DRM will, in the future,
interfere with the intended release into the public domain of old works.
I believe it will, which is I think the point The Wanderer was trying to
make several messages ago.
Richard
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:51:14 -0400
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
Digital Restrictions Management
Message-ID: <[🔎] 5379F032.9090703@attglobal.net">[🔎] 5379F032.9090703@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 5/19/2014 7:39 AM, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 19/05/2014 13:20, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
>> On 5/19/2014 6:08 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> On 5/19/14, Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/14 20:43, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any)
>>>>>>> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright
>>>>>>> has now
>>>>>>> lapsed?
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that the reverse? Mickey Mouse, when first released was not
>>>> subject to DRM, and copyright (due to the above law) has not lapsed.
>>>
>>> Yes. Exactly. And the point being, the copyright moguls achieve
>>> endless extensions due to their parliamentary $ influence, so there's
>>> a good chance you will never get such an example as the one you ask
>>> for - due to ever-increasing copyright extensions.
>>>
>>> At least, in the good ole U.S of A.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whether you like it or not, that is the law. Period.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>
> 1) One can say that one disapprove a law, it's called democracy
>
> 2) When lawmakers are paid to orient what they do this is usually called
> corruption.
>
>
And falsely accusing someone of being corrupt is libel.
Jerry