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

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

Received on Saturday, 15 June 2013 03:04:55 UTC