Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #243784 > unrolled thread

More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 03:18 +0000
    Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 20:28 -0700
      Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 03:45 +0000
        Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 20:54 -0700
          Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 04:34 +0000
            Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 21:41 -0700
              Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 04:46 +0000
                Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 02:05 -0700
                  Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 19:19 +0000
                    Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:10 -0700
                      Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-16 00:34 +0000
                        Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:43 -0700
                          Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-16 07:04 +0000
                            Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 07:07 -0500
                              Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 07:38 -0700
                              Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 13:09 -0400
                                Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 17:51 -0700
                                  Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-18 19:03 -0700
                            Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 07:32 -0700
                              Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 17:05 +0200
                                Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 08:14 -0700
                        Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 20:57 -0400
    Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 08:26 +0200
      Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 06:40 +0000
        Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 08:47 +0200
          Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 07:54 +0000
            Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 10:02 +0200
              Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-15 10:35 +0200
                Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-15 07:03 -0500
            Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-15 05:57 -0400
        Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 09:06 -0400
    Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 08:58 -0400
      Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 19:21 +0000
        Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:50 -0700
          Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-16 07:06 +0000
            Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-16 07:33 -0400
              Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-16 11:09 -0600
            Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 07:33 -0700
      Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:20 -0700
    Re: More Mozilla Bendovers - This Time, It's The Hollywood Mafia bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> - 2014-05-15 21:04 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#244001

On 5/16/14, 8:05 AM, in article 878uq14vcj.fsf@development.richardriley.net,
"Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> On 5/16/14, 12:04 AM, in article ll4da2$ipt$8@dont-email.me, "bleak_fire_"
>> <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> First, I do not accept that the open source world cannot come up with a
>>>> capable DRM solution. I do not know much of the OpenIPMP project, but I
>>>> would assume it is not the only open source group looking into this.
>>>> 
>>>> But even if there are no open source solutions: so what?
>>> 
>>> You kept insisting that EME is "open-source DRM"
>> 
>> No, I do not. EME is not DRM *at all*.
>> 
>>> vs the DRM of Flash and Silverlight. It's pure Orwellian doublespeak to
>>> claim
>>> that a closed box is open because another company's name is on it.
>> 
>> Nobody is doing that.
>> 
>> You denied there are open source DRM solutions. You were wrong. With that
>> said I do not know how good the open source solutions are.
>> 
>> So the question becomes: do you prefer content owners use a closed-source
>> solution such as Flash or that they have more incentive to use open source
>> solutions such as OpenIPMP and other open source DRM solutions?
>> 
>> Personally I am happy to see open source be able to compete better. Why
>> would you not be?
> 
> Because open or closed source is not the freetard's issue. The issue is
> it being harder for him to "own" things he *thinks* he has bought. e.g
> to pirate a movie he may or  may not have watched at the cinema.

Right: but he keeps getting very confused. Here are the facts... they are
not complex:

* EME is not DRM.
* There are open source DRM solutions.
* Property protected by DRM is harder to copy (on purpose!)



-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243952

On 14-05-15 08:34 PM, bleak_fire_ wrote:
> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 17:10:15 -0700, Snit leapt from the
> flames and sang:
> 
>> On 5/15/14, 12:19 PM, in article ll3400$lps$2@dont-email.me,
>> "bleak_fire_" <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Wow, you must be really sick in the head with control and abuse
>>>>>>> issues if you believe browsers should put DRM and kill-switches in
>>>>>>> every picture and video.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is your better solution? Flash? What? I am open to listening.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already told you. If you want to infect yourself with DRM via PUPs
>>>>> like Flash and Silverlight, shoot up.
>>>>
>>>> So Flash or Silverlight. And you think this is bad? Um, how?
>>>>
>>>> In the end you have no real solution. You do not like DRM... so what?
>>>> Why not work to make these proprietary solutions redundant and
>>>> unnecessary? Are you really in love with the idea of helping Adobe
>>>> (mostly) and Microsoft (a bit)?
>>>
>>> DRM is proprietary.
>>
>> First, what is being added is EME, not DRM. And ERM does allow for the
>> use of DRM without the use of Flash or Silverlight. Here, this might
>> help you to understand it better: <http://ars.to/13KG31t>.
> 
> DRM is proprietary, no matter who does it or how.
> The inner nature (source code, trade secret, or anything else) of DRM 
> cannot legally be examined, published, or discussed without violating 
> federal copyright and trade secret laws. Thus it is impossible to have 
> "open DRM". Whether it be EME or a browser plugin, DRM is proprietary, 
> there is no "open DRM", as something which cannot be opened is not "open".

If Mozilla indeed goes the DRM route, tell yourself that it is
essentially meaningless as forks of the Mozilla browser will appear
excluding the offending content. Debian already uses IceWeasel whereas
the Trisquel GNU/Linux distribution uses ABrowser which is another
Mozilla without any kind of proprietary content. There's no reason to
believe that such browsers wouldn't be made available to users of
proprietary operating systems as well.

The very nature of free software is such that if a project ever chooses
what we consider to be the wrong path, we can easily set it straight
with our own version of that project.

-- 
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
www.silverlips.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243803

bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:

> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-necessity-
> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>
> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft, 
> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5 digital 
> rights management specification called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).
>
> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla 
> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to 
> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed source 
> Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
>
> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped 
> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch from 
> their browsers.

Afraid you'll have to pay for things?

-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243804

on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:26:08 +0200, Hadron leapt from
the flames and sang:

> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
> 
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-
necessity-
>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>>
>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
>> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
>> Extensions (EME).
>>
>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed
>> source Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
>>
>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped
>> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch
>> from their browsers.
> 
> Afraid you'll have to pay for things?

If the opportunity presented itself, I would pay up to a few hundred 
dollars to have a GUI browser free from the HTML5/EME kill switch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

-- 

bleak_fire_

fka "azz" et al since nine-seven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243805

bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:

> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:26:08 +0200, Hadron leapt from
> the flames and sang:
>
>> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-
> necessity-
>>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>>>
>>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
>>> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
>>> Extensions (EME).
>>>
>>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed
>>> source Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
>>>
>>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped
>>> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch
>>> from their browsers.
>> 
>> Afraid you'll have to pay for things?
>
> If the opportunity presented itself, I would pay up to a few hundred 
> dollars to have a GUI browser free from the HTML5/EME kill switch.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

Up to a few hundred dollars?

In the same way a thief buys a skeleton key you mean.

We are talking about media that costs a lot of time and effort to
make. Why should they allow that to be stolen free of charge by you? Why
should you get unlimited views with one entrance ticket?

You sound like a thief and a freetard.


-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243807

on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:47:06 +0200, Hadron leapt from
the flames and sang:

> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
> 
>> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:26:08 +0200, Hadron leapt from
>> the flames and sang:
>>
>>> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-
>> necessity-
>>>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>>>>
>>>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>>>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
>>>> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
>>>> Extensions (EME).
>>>>
>>>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>>>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>>>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed
>>>> source Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption
>>>> needs."
>>>>
>>>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and
>>>> underdeveloped GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice
>>>> video kill switch from their browsers.
>>> 
>>> Afraid you'll have to pay for things?
>>
>> If the opportunity presented itself, I would pay up to a few hundred
>> dollars to have a GUI browser free from the HTML5/EME kill switch.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
> 
> Up to a few hundred dollars?
> 
> In the same way a thief buys a skeleton key you mean.
> 
> We are talking about media that costs a lot of time and effort to make.
> Why should they allow that to be stolen free of charge by you? Why
> should you get unlimited views with one entrance ticket?
> 
> You sound like a thief and a freetard.

It sounds like you are promoting the "if he's against it, he has 
something to hide" mentality that empowers fascist regimes. Your desire 
to put a kill switch into every Web site, in every browser, in every 
computing device, in every home, is extremely dangerous.

-- 

bleak_fire_

fka "azz" et al since nine-seven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243809

bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:

> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:47:06 +0200, Hadron leapt from
> the flames and sang:
>
>> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:26:08 +0200, Hadron leapt from
>>> the flames and sang:
>>>
>>>> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-
>>> necessity-
>>>>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>>>>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
>>>>> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
>>>>> Extensions (EME).
>>>>>
>>>>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>>>>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>>>>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed
>>>>> source Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption
>>>>> needs."
>>>>>
>>>>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and
>>>>> underdeveloped GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice
>>>>> video kill switch from their browsers.
>>>> 
>>>> Afraid you'll have to pay for things?
>>>
>>> If the opportunity presented itself, I would pay up to a few hundred
>>> dollars to have a GUI browser free from the HTML5/EME kill switch.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
>> 
>> Up to a few hundred dollars?
>> 
>> In the same way a thief buys a skeleton key you mean.
>> 
>> We are talking about media that costs a lot of time and effort to make.
>> Why should they allow that to be stolen free of charge by you? Why
>> should you get unlimited views with one entrance ticket?
>> 
>> You sound like a thief and a freetard.
>
> It sounds like you are promoting the "if he's against it, he has 
> something to hide" mentality that empowers fascist regimes. Your desire 
> to put a kill switch into every Web site, in every browser, in every 
> computing device, in every home, is extremely dangerous.

Like a have to say to every freetard occasionally : WTF are you talking
about?


-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243810

The lying imbecile Hadron Msg-ID Larry snotted:

> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
> 
>> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:47:06 +0200, Hadron leapt from
>> the flames and sang:
>>
>>> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:26:08 +0200, Hadron leapt from
>>>> the flames and sang:
>>>>
>>>>> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by->>>> necessity-
>>>>>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>>>>>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
>>>>>> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
>>>>>> Extensions (EME).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>>>>>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>>>>>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed
>>>>>> source Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption
>>>>>> needs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and
>>>>>> underdeveloped GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice
>>>>>> video kill switch from their browsers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Afraid you'll have to pay for things?
>>>>
>>>> If the opportunity presented itself, I would pay up to a few hundred
>>>> dollars to have a GUI browser free from the HTML5/EME kill switch.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
>>> 
>>> Up to a few hundred dollars?
>>> 
>>> In the same way a thief buys a skeleton key you mean.
>>> 
>>> We are talking about media that costs a lot of time and effort to make.
>>> Why should they allow that to be stolen free of charge by you? Why
>>> should you get unlimited views with one entrance ticket?
>>> 
>>> You sound like a thief and a freetard.
>>
>> It sounds like you are promoting the "if he's against it, he has
>> something to hide" mentality that empowers fascist regimes. Your desire
>> to put a kill switch into every Web site, in every browser, in every
>> computing device, in every home, is extremely dangerous.
> 
> Like a have to say to every freetard occasionally : WTF are you talking
> about?
> 

As usual you understand basically nothing

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243822

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> The lying imbecile Hadron Msg-ID Larry snotted:
>> 
>> Like a have to say to every freetard occasionally : WTF are you talking
>> about?

Because you're a simpleton and a shill for the corporate interests,
"Hadron".

Is it true, "Hadron", that the existence of Free GNU/Linux makes it
impossible for Microsoft to have a monopoly?  If GNU/Linux did not
exist, would the existence of FreeBSD make it impossible for Microsoft
to have a monopoly?

Do you think, just maybe, "Hadron", that the legal definition of
"monopoly" may have more to do with an unhealthy amount of control of
a market, and not require an absolute *absence* of alternatives?

Yeah, you're a "smart one", "Hadron".

>As usual you understand basically nothing

It's not "Hadron's" job to understand.  His job is to attack any
opponent of his corporate masters, all while claiming to "use and love
Linux".

-- 
"How can someone have a monopoly when there is a FREE competitor
freely downloadable and easier to install?"  -  "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243817

bleak_fire_ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:47:06 +0200, Hadron leapt from
> the flames and sang:
>> 
>> You sound like a thief and a freetard.
>
> It sounds like you are promoting the "if he's against it, he has 
> something to hide" mentality that empowers fascist regimes.

That's "Hadron", all right.

> Your desire to put a kill switch into every Web site, in every browser, in
> every computing device, in every home, is extremely dangerous.

   http://www.fsf.org/

-- 
Individuality
 
My words are easy to understand
And my actions are easy to perform
Yet no other can understand or perform them.
My words have meaning; my actions have reason;
Yet these cannot be known and I cannot be known.
We are each unique, and therefore valuable;
Though the sage wears coarse clothes, his heart is jade.
		-- Lao Tse, "Tao Te Ching"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243833

On 14-05-15 02:40 AM, bleak_fire_ wrote:
> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:26:08 +0200, Hadron leapt from
> the flames and sang:
> 
>> bleak_fire_ <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-
> necessity-
>>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>>>
>>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
>>> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
>>> Extensions (EME).
>>>
>>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed
>>> source Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
>>>
>>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped
>>> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch
>>> from their browsers.
>>
>> Afraid you'll have to pay for things?
> 
> If the opportunity presented itself, I would pay up to a few hundred 
> dollars to have a GUI browser free from the HTML5/EME kill switch.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

Isn't midori one such browser? How about Web under Gnome?

-- 
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
www.silverlips.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243830

On 14-05-14 11:18 PM, bleak_fire_ wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-necessity-
> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
> 
> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft, 
> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5 digital 
> rights management specification called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).
> 
> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla 
> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to 
> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed source 
> Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
> 
> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped 
> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch from 
> their browsers.

In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more than
a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.

-- 
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
www.silverlips.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243875

on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 08:58:17 -0400, Silver Slimer leapt
from the flames and sang:

> On 14-05-14 11:18 PM, bleak_fire_ wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-
necessity-
>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>> 
>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
>> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
>> Extensions (EME).
>> 
>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed
>> source Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
>> 
>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped
>> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch
>> from their browsers.
> 
> In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
> to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
> purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
> it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
> consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more than
> a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.

DRM is always proprietary. If it were open you would voluntarily follow 
it.

-- 

bleak_fire_

fka "azz" et al since nine-seven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243950

On 5/15/14, 12:21 PM, in article ll3440$lps$3@dont-email.me, "bleak_fire_"
<penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:

>> In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
>> to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
>> purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
>> it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
>> consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more than
>> a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
> 
> DRM is always proprietary. If it were open you would voluntarily follow
> it.

There are open source DRM solutions.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243966

on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 17:50:58 -0700, Snit leapt from the
flames and sang:

> On 5/15/14, 12:21 PM, in article ll3440$lps$3@dont-email.me,
> "bleak_fire_"
> <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
>>> to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
>>> purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
>>> it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
>>> consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more
>>> than a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
>> 
>> DRM is always proprietary. If it were open you would voluntarily follow
>> it.
> 
> There are open source DRM solutions.

That's classic Orwellian absurdity right there. Just because the label 
says "W3C" instead of "Flash" does not make a locked box "open".

-- 

bleak_fire_

fka "azz" et al since nine-seven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243975

bleak_fire_ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 17:50:58 -0700, Snit leapt from the
> flames and sang:
>
>> On 5/15/14, 12:21 PM, in article ll3440$lps$3@dont-email.me,
>> "bleak_fire_"
>> <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
>>>> to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
>>>> purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
>>>> it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
>>>> consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more
>>>> than a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
>>> 
>>> DRM is always proprietary. If it were open you would voluntarily follow
>>> it.
>> 
>> There are open source DRM solutions.
>
> That's classic Orwellian absurdity right there. Just because the label 
> says "W3C" instead of "Flash" does not make a locked box "open".

The implementation being open doesn't mean the box cannot be closed.

Just as visible source code doesn't make a program insecure.
Just as visible source code doesn't make encryption easier to break.

-- 
Alas, how love can trifle with itself!
		-- William Shakespeare, "The Two Gentlemen of Verona"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244019

On 5/16/2014 5:33 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> bleak_fire_ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 17:50:58 -0700, Snit leapt from the
>> flames and sang:
>>
>>> On 5/15/14, 12:21 PM, in article ll3440$lps$3@dont-email.me,
>>> "bleak_fire_"
>>> <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
>>>>> to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
>>>>> purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
>>>>> it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
>>>>> consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more
>>>>> than a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
>>>>
>>>> DRM is always proprietary. If it were open you would voluntarily follow
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> There are open source DRM solutions.
>>
>> That's classic Orwellian absurdity right there. Just because the label 
>> says "W3C" instead of "Flash" does not make a locked box "open".
> 
> The implementation being open doesn't mean the box cannot be closed.
> 
> Just as visible source code doesn't make a program insecure.
> Just as visible source code doesn't make encryption easier to break.
> 

Correct, like OpenVMS is no more open than Windows.


-- 
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks
to the Internet, we know this is not true -- Robert Wilensky, 1997

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243992

On 5/16/14, 12:06 AM, in article ll4dec$ipt$9@dont-email.me, "bleak_fire_"
<penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:

> on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 17:50:58 -0700, Snit leapt from the
> flames and sang:
> 
>> On 5/15/14, 12:21 PM, in article ll3440$lps$3@dont-email.me,
>> "bleak_fire_"
>> <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
>>>> to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
>>>> purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
>>>> it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
>>>> consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more
>>>> than a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
>>> 
>>> DRM is always proprietary. If it were open you would voluntarily follow
>>> it.
>> 
>> There are open source DRM solutions.
> 
> That's classic Orwellian absurdity right there. Just because the label
> says "W3C" instead of "Flash" does not make a locked box "open".

You insisted all DRM solutions are closed, like Flash. This is not true:
there *are* open source solutions (though EME is not one of them given how
it is not DRM *at all*).

What is so hard about this to understand?


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243934

On 5/15/14, 5:58 AM, in article ll2dl9$9a6$3@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:

> On 14-05-14 11:18 PM, bleak_fire_ wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-necessity-
>> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
>> 
>> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
>> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5 digital
>> rights management specification called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).
>> 
>> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
>> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
>> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed source
>> Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
>> 
>> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped
>> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch from
>> their browsers.
> 
> In one way it's a good thing because it ensures that people who refuse
> to install Flash won't be left out of the pack when it comes to
> purchasing digital content. On the other hand, it's also awful because
> it legitimizes the idea of pushing digital rights management down the
> consumers' throats. I have to admit that DRM has been nothing more than
> a nightmare for me and I try to avoid it at all costs.

I choose to not use DRM on the DVDs I sell - but if I wanted to protect my
property with it that would be my right. To not be dependant on Flash would
be great. 


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243881

on the great fire of Thu, 15 May 2014 03:18:35 +0000, bleak_fire_ leapt
from the flames and sang:

> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/driven-by-
necessity-
> mozilla-to-enable-html5-drm-in-firefox/
> 
> "Mozilla announced today that it will follow the lead of Microsoft,
> Google, and Apple and implement support for the contentious HTML5
> digital rights management specification called Encrypted Media
> Extensions (EME).
> 
> The organization is partnering with Adobe to make the change. Mozilla
> will provide the hooks and APIs in Firefox to enable Web content to
> manipulate DRM-protected content, and Adobe will provide a closed source
> Content Decryption Module (CDM) to handle the decryption needs."
> 
> Necessity my ass. I pray to God the Debian versions and underdeveloped
> GNU version guts out the all-site no-counternotice video kill switch
> from their browsers.

I received this in an activism e-mail from the FSF:

"* **Use a version of Firefox without the EME code**: Since its source
code is available under a license allowing anyone to modify and
redistribute it under a different name, we expect versions without
EME to be made available, and you should use those instead. We will
list them in the [Free Software Directory][7]."

-- 

bleak_fire_

fka "azz" et al since nine-seven

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web