Re: Yet Another Tech Industry Whore-Out: Mozilla

[Snit]

On 7/14/13 6:33 PM, in article krvjgc$ikh$3@dont-email.me, "Red Blade"
<penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:29:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> On 7/14/13 5:49 PM, in article krvgu6$ebu$2@dont-email.me, "Red Blade"
>> <penachew@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:51:25 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The question is about how I should protect my property... and you (in
>>>> my mind correctly) acknowledged it should be my choice. And those
>>>> choices include many DRM methods which are available to me. My choice.
>>>> 
>>>> Choice is good.
>>> 
>>> No, because the law forces us to accept your "choice" or become felons
>>> and serve heavy fines and jailtime (WIPO treaty/DMCA, etc).
>> 
>> Of course you do not get to use *my* property as *you* wish... you get
>> to use my property as *I* wish (or as I license you to use it, really).
>> 
>>> Otherwise, your malicious attempts to control your customers' private
>>> lives and use of private property in their private homes, you would be
>>> playing catch-up with your malicious products like you should.
>> 
>> How is it malicious to want to control my own property? I do not follow.
> 
> The question is who owns the product - the person who bought it
> themselves and keeps it in their home to use it any way they rightfully
> which, or your complete control over the consumer's life and use of the
> product in their private lives and homes? Your answer is fascism, which
> enables government-endorsed claims of "super-property" over actual
> property and privacy, allowing for complete dictatorship of individuals
> and their homes and property by the alleged "super-property" "owner".

Huh? To say I own my own property is "fascism"? No: it is capitalism. That
is pretty much the definition of it!

If I agree to let you use my car that does not mean you own it. If you buy a
DVD with my training lessons and that purchase includes a license to use the
material in a way protected by copyright, you do not have rights to *my*
property outside of those (unless I grant them to you).

You have no rights to my property which I do not agree to. None. Claiming
that my protecting my rights - something you agreed at first was my choice
to do so - is not a form of fascism (nothing authoritarian about it, nothing
about any leader, nothing militaristic about it, nothing nationalistic about
it... I do not think you know what the word even means!). You also say that
a person protecting their own property is somehow showing control over
others... well, sure, you have no right to my car, my house, my copyrighted
material, or any other property unless I grant you such access or control.
Why would you? And why would you think it was "malicious" of me to not want
people using my house in ways I have not agreed to other using any property
of mine in ways I have not agreed to?

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain why you should have rights to my
property even if I have not agreed to the rights you are saying you have.

By the way, if it matters: I have decided to *not* use any DRM system for my
DVDs and even help people to make copies to their hard drive or backups to
other DVDs or media. I do have a copyright notice that defines rights for
people but I figure DRM is going to be more of a hassle for users than an
actual protection for me and my property. But that is my *choice*. For
future products I might make a different choice.

Choice is good. Nothing "fascist" or "malicious" about having choices as to
how to protect my own property. What an odd claim!

-- 
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds