Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On 5/19/2014 9:00 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/19/2014 8:33 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
On 20/05/14 00:23, Richard Hector wrote:
On 20/05/14 00:20, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You cannot link to an image on my site. But you can provide a link to
that image. An important difference.
I confess I don't see that difference.
Are you saying that the link must be visible and not clickable?
Again, I'd still like to see a reference to a law (in your chosen
jurisdiction) that forbids whatever kind of link you say isn't
permitted.
Oh, I guess you're talking about inline image links, eg <img
src="http://someone-elses-server/image.jpg";>
That issue seems to be still up for debate, with strong views on both
sides.
Only on the internet is it up for debate.
In no other forums does such debate occur, of course...
Wrong. I've seen it time and time again.
And that's right, what people say on the Internet is like, you know,
bathroom talk, it's not _real_ debate and can't possibly represent
peoples' _real_ views..
Once again you can't discuss the facts to you make personal attacks.
But then there are people who think they should be able
Whether I should or not, is an issue unrelated to ability. I think you
mean to say "people who think they should be permitted at law ..." ?
No, I meant what I said.
to do anything with whatever they find on the
internet - copyrights, ownership, bandwidth, whatever be damned.
You're being a little too general still, but at least itemizing some
real issues.
No, I meant exactly what I said.
There's too much of that going around now. That's why DRM was created.
There are different futures that can be created.
We are participants (even if only to a small degree) in the creation
of our future.
Whether Firefox or Iceweasel supporting a sandbox which supports a DRM
binary blob or not contributes to or detracts from what an individual
actor would like to see in their future, is the question at hand.
As others have pointed out - you have a choice. Just because DRM exists
does not mean you have to use it.
You for example, most likely consider Firefox's upcoming DRM sandbox
to be a simply wonderful thing, facilitating bread on your table.
I consider DRM to be another means to protect my intellectual property
from those who think they should be able to use it.
Others might consider that this sandbox could be a slippery wedge to
open the door to pervasive DRM-only content, and cringe at the very
thought. Such ones might then ask what is the most strategic way to
prevent such a future:
a) Debian Iceweasel including this feature.
b) Debian Iceweasel not including this feature.
It might be. But that still does not mean you have to use DRM. But you
aren't going to stop it, and if Iceweasel doesn't include it, Iceweasel
will be replaced by a product which will. DRM is here - whether you
like it or not.
Bread is good. Tables are useful. Freedom within ones own home is
paramount. Freedom within one's society is almost as important.
How to increase our freedoms is the question.
Don't you mean how to steal someone else's intellectual property is the
question. At least that's what you seem to be arguing for.
Jerry
Reply to: