Re: Iceweasel and DRM
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 17:33 +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Please continue on d-community-offtopic.
True, but I have to clarify something, see below.
> On 5/23/14, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 May 2014 22:31:18 -0400
> > Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > ...
> >> >>>> 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.
> >
> > Don't bother arguing with these idiots Jerry. I'll bet you dollars to
> > donuts they never took the time to write, edit, format, produce, and
> > market a 100K word book to help them feed their children. They probably
> > have salary jobs, and if they get laid off, they get unemployment.
> >
> > Here's the thing Jerry: With all their yelling, I never once heard any
> > of these 150 decibel anti-DRM clowns promise not to give or sell a copy
> > of an author's work to someone else. I'm not talking about right of
> > first sale, which I assume they know nothing about, I'm talking about
> > buying (or grabbing from a torrent) a copy of somebody's work, keeping
> > it, but making copies of it and giving the copies to others. After all,
> > according to them, once they bought it, they can do anything they want
> > with it, right?
> >
> > It's not their problem that Article 1, section 8, paragraph 8 of the
> > US Constitution provides authors and inventors a limited time exclusive
> > right to the author's or inventor's writings and discoveries. It's
> > not their problem that copyright was a part of English law long before
> > the US constitution was written. It's not their problem that copyright
> > is part of the Berne convention, accepted and enforced by most modern
> > nations.
> >
> > It's not these clowns' problem if someone spent between 3 and 18 months
> > writing a book, in hope of feeding their children. It's not their
> > problem if the author must compete with cheap or zero cost exact copies
> > of the work he spent so long making, because the clowns are
> > distributing copies like the autumn leaves. It's not their problem
> > if the author's children don't eat. The clowns got theirs.
> >
> > It's kind of ironic, isn't it? If they don't like DRM (and who does?),
> > they should blame those who unauthorizedly distribute (or possess
> > unauthorized distributions). DRM was made to prevent these activities,
> > due to high number of freeloaders wanting authors to write for free. If
> > they don't like DMCA (and who does?), blame the unauthorized
> > distributors. If they don't like the obscene life+70 copyright periods
> > of many nations including the US, blame the unauthorized distributors,
> > who ceded the moral high ground to Disney and Sonny Bono and that crowd
> > by snatching money right out of authors' pocketbooks.
> >
> > Jerry, if the clowns who have been arguing with you had a single
> > testicle between them, they'd do with Stallman does: Simply promise
> > never to buy, procure, nor distribute, nonfree content. Stallman
> > *never* makes unauthorized copies of nonfree content. But that's not
> > their style: they whine about buying a book and then not being able to
> > give copies to others: or at least they never forswore making copies and
> > distributing to others.
> >
> > The sad thing is, Jerry, although I hate the fact that the US law
> > provides for a judgment of $150K *per unauthorizedly obtained work*
> > against those who unauthorizedly copy, or receive such copies, the
> > arrogant disregard of stealing other peoples' opportunity to make money,
> > and their pride in not knowing the law, make me hope it happens to them.
> >
> > They're clowns Jerry: ignore them.
> >
> > SteveT
> > Steve Litt
> > Author: Troubleshooting: Tools, Tips and Techniques
> > Author: Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist
> > Author: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
> > Author: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
> > Author: Rapid Learning For the 21st Century
> > Author: Thriving in Tough Times
> > Author: The Key to Everyday Excellence
> > Author: Rules of the Happiness Highway
> > All but the first two written and produced using Free Software
Being against DRM isn't clownery :(. I made a living from artwork many
times in my live, without the need of idiotic copy protections. If the
people who like your work don't like to pay you, consider for what
people you're making your work. Is the target group for your work that
anti-social or your work not worth to spend money for it? Consider to
make better work for a better target group, then you don't need copy
protection anymore.
Reply to: