5:26 p.m.
<friday_trolling>
On Thursday 16 October 2008 16:38:38 Sebastian Vahl wrote:
Am Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:01:38 +0200
schrieb Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com>:
...
> this is a really bad attitude, and I'm sad to hear that
from
> you :-(
Don't dictate other people from other countries what they
should think and what they fear.
hm, saying that something is a bad attitude and I am sad about it
is "dictating" ... oh well ... then please prepend "this is only
my humble personal opinion and I do not force anybody to act
according to it in any other way than telling him what I
consider righteous, while I respect that the opinions may
differ" to all of my text, so that you do not get unnecessary
angry
and if the country is so important to you, then please guarantee
that these laws are going to stay in Germany and won't spread
like a plague across the whole European Union which we share
(nor the whole world, of course - but there is the First
Amendment in the U.S. ...)
> the first one is to write about it in a way which cannot be
> seen in violation of the law in any way
The problem here is that a famous german news site was
condemned just because they linked in a news story to the
website of a similar product as libdvdcss (AFAIR). So the best
thing would be to not provide libdvdcss in RPMFusion.
"So the best" ... hm, looks to me like this is a typical hasty
generalisation and deductive fallacy (missing step between what
happens in Germany and what is best for RPMFusion)
so, they linked - if *this* is the court evidence, is it
necessary to link? (Google is filtered in Germany?)
"in a news story" - what was the story about, how was it written?
what if you say something like: "Dear German users, our law
forbids this and that, so if you encounter it, do not download
and use it."?
... of course I do not know the exact wording of the law, but I
bet there is a way how to dodge - using the example above, I
cannot imagine that you'd be punished for telling people to
behave in accordance with the law
and before you tell me again that it is stupid - it is just
simplified, but the principle should work, just go find a lawyer
who will make it perfect
> the second is not to equivocate and try to find *a lot of*
> supporters - they cannot imprison the whole nation ... being
> selected as the one deterrent case surely is not pleasant,
> but remember, if there weren't the braves in America ready
> to put their lives, the negros - sorry, "afroamericans" -
> there would be slaves still ... so a year in prison in the
> worst case does not sound that bad as a active resistance
> against being put into this new age digital "slavery"
Sorry, but that's stupid. No one is dying because of not being
able to install libdvdcss through rpmfusion.
and so no one will be executed because of providing it - the
example is for illustration, not to match the situation exactly:
then it would not be an example of a similar principle but a
description of the situation
libdvdcss is just
not important enough to ruin my life for it (when being
imprisoned or being sentenced to pay a lot of money, hell,
don't even to get the money for a lawsuit). libdvdcss is just
not important enough to demand on the freedom of speech and
the freedom of press (especially for a single person).
of course it is not so important ... if you boil a frog,
increasing the temperature by one degree is not that important
for it to jump out ...
The law to forbid libdvdcss may be stupid, but RPMFusion or
Richard's blog isn't the right place to fight against this
law.
ok, so ... in which way do you fight against it?
...
As said above, don't dictate other people what they should do.
Thanks.
yep, please do not do the same to me what you want me not to do
to others, thanks :-p
</friday_trolling>
(hope this will get lost in the flooding of the bugzilla e-mail
we are getting ;-))
K.