Iceweasel and DRM

[Chris Bannister]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> The answer is very simple, on Debian user there was the claim that
> critic against an idea of the industry (lobby), that wants to introduce
> as many monopolies as possible, is done by pirates. This claim is
> nonsense and I can't take it, when those are the last words for this
> thread on a Linux mailing list. Linux users are known for usually not
> using pirate software and for sharing knowledge, for not using
> proprietary software when ever possible, IOW DRM should be against the
> worldview of many Linux users.

True, its similar (to use an old analogy of mine.) to advocating using
meat products for cooking on a vegetarian mailing list, then wondering
why there is all this antagonism. 

> I already needed to pay the due that is included to the price of empty
> audio tapes, because there is the broad-brush assumption that people use
> those tapes to make a copy. 

Is that documented anywhere.

> First of all it's allowed to make one
> private copy, that's why consumer DAT has got the copy bit. And last but
> not least, I used the tapes to record my on intellectual property. 

Intellectual property is not one thing, and can't fairly be treated as
such. I'm guessing if it benefited the avg 'Joe Bloggs on the street'
more than big business to lump it all together like that then it would
be changed pretty damned quick!

It's worth reading this: 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

> So
> the pirates are those who add that "copy"-due to the price of empty
> tapes. I want to get my money back from Madonna! I never bought her
> "music", but I also never illegal copied this piss she calls music.

Good point!

If you had the money and a decent lawyer you could join the circus in
what some people call the American Justice System

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X