RE: Balance - (was RE: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD))

On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 20:04 -0700, John Foliot wrote:
> piranna@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > That's a danger comparation, since today there's a lot of
> > superstitions on religions today and seems that FOSS movements are
> > filosofical-equal to them, while not. It's accepted from a rational
> > perspective that in origin, religions mandates, laws and concepts was
> > acceptable due to their conditions that today doesn't apply, like high
> > calorities on pork meat (not desirable for heated countries, but
> > really good for cold, northerm ones), and this concepts where designed
> > in a way all people would understand to protect them, and they have
> > perdured until today without discussion.
> 
> You are correct. We, as a society, accept that those who continue to carry
> out these practices are, in an open and free society, allowed to do so
> today, without interference or persecution - even if personally you or I, as
> individuals, do not prescribe to those practices. 
> 
> In a closed or dictated society however, everyone must conform to the same
> "thought", the same practices, the "smarter, better, more modern" practices,
> regardless of history, or personal philosophy, or personal freedom. Whether
> you are prepared to admit it or not, that very much feels like the choice I
> am being forced to accept from you and your FOSS brethren today.
> 
> > 
> > FOSS ideologic also fix some current problems, but instead of being
> > dictated by governators, superstitions, fear and tradition, they are
> > builded based on common sense and also something that have been taugh
> > (also in a good way) since we were child: the beneficts of sharing,
> > everything.
> 
> I have also been taught (in a good way) that business and the free-market
> system, while not perfect, is better than any other system we have today.
> That fair trade is good - and that protecting your means of life, whether
> it's your farm field or your digital collection, is not only not
> unreasonable, but in fact wise and good common sense.
> 
> I have been taught that locks don't stop criminals, they keep honest people
> honest. I have also been taught that it is common sense (in fact customary)
> to lock my house, my car, my personal locker at work, etc. I've been taught
> that in a reasonable society, we respect the locks others have placed, not
> as a maximum security barriers, but rather as a sign that this person does
> not want to share what it is they have locked without their permission, and
> perhaps compensation. 
> 
> I have been taught that just because someone creates something, I do not
> automatically have a right to take that, to "presume" that I can share in it
> simply because it exists. 
> 
> A Farmer plants and tends his crops: I pay him for his produce. (That same
> farmer also puts a fence around his farmyard, and defends it with his
> shotgun from intruders - be they animal or human.) A Tailor purchases cloth,
> cuts and sews it into a suit, and I pay him for that suit. (That same Tailor
> also locks his shop at night, and has installed an alarm that I do not know
> how to disable.) Why then should it be that an artist creates a digital
> work, and it should be "Free" - because it is digital? And why does it not
> seem common sense that they too would look for a means to secure their work,
> their livelihood? 
> 
> I have learned over my life that some societies *do* live this way, but that
> it is but ONE way, not the *only* way, and that it is neither better nor
> worse - simply different. (And I have been taught to be tolerant to
> differences, in thought, in appearance, in sexual preferences, in race,
> creed, or religious conviction).
> 
> I have been taught that looking out for my fellow man is a good thing, up
> until the point that I invade on their liberties and freedoms, after which
> my efforts, no matter how well intentioned, are wrong.
> 
> Finally, I have been taught (in a very good way) that forcing my
> philosophical positions on others is also wrong. That personal freedoms
> should be just as important as communal thought, and that we should *invite*
> others to our way of thought, not refuse them any choice but to join in.
> 
> 
> > On the other side, DRM systems also try to solve some
> > related problems, but being dictated and forced and trying to convince
> > us... 
> 
> Nobody is dictating or forcing you to watch movies or television programs
> over the internet, on demand, whenever and where-ever. Those are not rights,
> they are services and products; services and products offered under a
> specific contract of law and under specific conditions, whereby you agree to
> exchange a measure of value (money) for a specifically defined product or
> service (stream Game of Thrones to your iPad).
> 
> I'm not trying to convince you of anything. YOU, Mr. piranna@gmail, have a
> free choice here: eat the meal that these service providers are offering, or
> don't. You can come back with all the platitudes in the world as to why that
> seems wrong to you, but the simple fact of the matter is, they do not want
> to do it your way. You don't want DRM'ed movies? DON'T BUY THEM! You don't
> want DRM enabled browsers? DON'T USE THEM!
> 
> But do not, for one minute, presume that because these people wish to
> conduct their business in a manner that is different than how you would do
> so, that they should lose the ability to do so, simply because *you* think
> it is wrong.
> 
> JF
> 
> 

They can conduct their business but why should they be controlling other
people's computers in order to do it? 

Let's assume that every music CD has Digital Restrictions Management. In
this scenario I can't rip that CD and use it on any personal device of
my choice. I'm now limited to use it in a way that the publisher sees
fit an that goes well beyond copyright. Thankfully that is not the case
with CDs today and I can put it on any digital device I own. I
personally like to collect CDs because I like the artists and the work
they do. I don't like to mess up my original copies so I rip them,
listen to them on my computer or personal device and shelve the original
in my library. I will thumb through and look at the artwork in the album
every once in a while but that's about as much interaction as I have
with the original copy. Is there anything wrong with this type use? No.
But given every ounce of control that publishers want, they'd stop me
from doing that if they could.

You set out your last email as though anyone that shares the "FOSS"
point of view expects everything at no cost and that we demand that from
everyone. It is quite the opposite. I pay for my movies, my music and my
books. All of them. I don't expect them for nothing but I do expect to
use them as I wish. I don't have to install any bogus controlling
software on anyone else's computer to do that, so I'm not imposing
anything on anyone. Digital Restrictions Management requires that and
that's the problem. I want total control over my computer as does
everyone else that understands and uses free software to keep their
computers free.

One other thing about your argument in favor of Digital Restrictions
Management; there are already ridiculously over reaching copyright laws
to protect copyrighted works, why should there be more? Copyright
already lasts longer than a person lives and violating copyright carries
some very heavy consequences. 
 
-- 
/* Free software is a matter of liberty, not price.
   Visit GNU.org * FSF.org * Trisquel.info */

Received on Saturday, 15 June 2013 04:09:16 UTC