On 16/05/14 05:59, Gary Dale wrote: > On 15/05/14 02:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 5/15/2014 1:53 PM, Gary Dale wrote: >>> On 15/05/14 01:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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. >>>> >>>> Copyright violations are rampant on the web. If there were no >>>> problem, DRM would not be required. People deserve to >>>> protect what they worked hard (and often paid) for. >>>> >>>> Just because it's there does not mean you have a right to use >>>> it as you see fit. Try using a car that was parked on the >>>> street, just because it was there. See how far you get. >>>> >>>> Jerry >>> >>> Nonsense. There is the concept of fair use. No right is nor >>> should be unlimited. DRM throws centuries of jurisprudence out >>> the window. >>> >>> DRM exists not because of copyright violation but because people >>> can get away with it.
>>> DVD's CSS for example never prevented anyone from making a copy >>> of a DVD. Wrong. How do you rip Disney encryption? Which of the 96 tracks do you go for? >>> It just prevented legitimate owners of DVDs from taking their >>> DVDs with them when they switched continents. Wrong. Region code (8-bits) is not part of Content Scrambling System. >>> >> >> You need to look up the meaning of "fair use". It does not, for >> instance, allow you to post a copy of an article on my web page - >> or even link to an image on my web page - without my permission. >> >> And this has been supported by "centuries of jurisprudence". DRM >> does nothing to change that. If the owner of the copyright >> doesn't want the item used, he/she can implement DRM to protect it. >> If he/she doesn't care, he/she does not need to implement DRM. >> >> And the claim that "if all browsers support DRM, everyone will use >> it" is completely bogus. For instance, all browsers (at least all >> of the major ones) support Java applets and Flash. But not >> everyone uses them. In fact, very few do - even though, according >> to your thinking, "they have no reason not to". >> >> Jerry >> >> > This is why so many discussions degenerate into flame wars - people > presenting ideas on topics they seem to have little knowledge. How very insightful. > I can, for example, quote anything presented publicly and post it > online with critical comment You exaggerate. Not anything. There are limitations on "fair use" - and they vary from country to country. > - except if it is part of DRM-protected content. That's an example > of fair use and how DRM restricts it. Rubbish. I read reviews of blueray movies all the time. I read reviews of articles that are behind paywalls. > > As for Flash, I note that for a long time it was the defacto standard > for posting video despite being proprietary. Yes. Java has been used for that as well - but the market has:- woken up to the reality that third party software loses market Adobe wants to keep a share of that market. <snipped> > > If I'm a typical content provider, I'll put in DRM if I can be sure > it won't interfere with my site's views. If only one browser > supports DRM, I'll think twice before doing it. > If you don't understand this reasoning, we have nothing more to talk > about. I understand the reasoning - I just don't agree with it, especially your methods. You don't want people to be able to use DRM, I want them to not use it of their own free will. You think you're liberating people - I think you're something else. I'll hold you to the "nothing more to talk about" - but I won't hold my breath - you've written nothing worth reading so far, the ban knives speech is old. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53752383.7000...@gmail.com
