On 5/18/2014 10:00 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> 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. It just prevented legitimate owners of DVDs from taking
their DVDs with them when they switched continents.
You need to look up the meaning of "fair use". It does not, for
You need to comprehend the difference between jurisprudential law and
common law (aka community law), and mind yourself of the fact that
jurisprudential law (shock horror) actually changes over time (as does
common law for that matter).
Unlike you, I know the difference. And jurisprudential law still rules
in the courts.
And there is a vast difference between common law as being common
sense and accepted mores of society, vs common law as 'the balance of
what's left over after statute, as modified and interpreted by judges'
(which is what the courts like to limit common law to).
See above.
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
Oh wow. Centuries of jurisdprudence on linking to an image or article.
I said nothing about linking to an article.
That's awesome. Was that, back in past centuries - an _alien_ internet?
Another straw man argument.
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.
Next you'll be saying, when we have the
image-in-brain-to-digital-recording copying machine, that you have
'control' (by force of government) to stop me thinking certain
thoughts - the thoughts of those images on your website that I'm no
longer allowed to think about.
Bring it on!
Another straw man argument.
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".
This is a logical statement which I agree with. This a part of common
sense which many people miss. But similarly, it is common sense that I
have freedom within the domain of my own house, to with _your_
(so-called) images as I like. My 'house' extends to my friends.
Another straw man argument.
Like it or not, _you_ have no control over that!
Statute artificial monopoly copyright law or not, _you_ have no
control over that!
I do when I own the copyright!
Statements of right and wrong, freedom or otherwise, _you_ have no
control over that!
I do, when I own the copyright!
By my will do I.
No, you do not.
Do I by my will.
No, you do not.
Get used to it. Or not. I don't care.
Zenaan
Yes. Get used to it. Or not. I don't care. But if I catch you
violating my copyright, I will have everything you own.
Jerry
--
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/53796808.6030...@attglobal.net
