Looks that way, doesn't it? Microsoft seems to be trying to spend the competition away. The only logical thing to do is buy the cheaper XP machine and put Linux on it.
Getting releases isn't just needless paperwork, it's also common courtesy. I'm a camera guy and an editor. I don't want to be in front of a camera unless asked politely and I certainly don't want strangers taking photos of me and using them without my consent; even for private use.
I certainly agree with you on that point. Regardless of legality, respecting other people's boundaries is key. Funny, too, how people who like to work behind the camera will do almost anything to avoid getting caught in front of one.
BTW, I'm in Seattle, so I'm almost a Canadian.
I knew there was a reason I liked you! Days like today make me feel lucky to be a photographer living on the west coast.
I don't really care what their stated motivation for using it is, what matters to me is what they actually use it for. If they didn't use it as an "access control method" we probably wouldn't complain about it. If it expired upon expiration of the copyright (LOL!), if it allowed the paying customer to exercise Fair Use without violating the DMCA, and didn't add additional restrictions on how the paying customer used the media they paid for beyond the restrictions covered by copyright law, then maybe I could buy that it's a form of copy protection.
As it is, publishers routinely use DRM as a form of access control, so I don't think your argument holds water. Even if every counterfeiter was shut down tomorrow, DVDs would still ship with DRM because the studios would not be willing to give up the control it gives them.
As for my example, yeah, I guess I fail as a counterfeiter, although I see no reason you couldn't mount the image file as a loopback device and play the movie. Maybe I'll give it a shot tonight.
I was of the understanding that there are firmware hacks out there that enable writing the CSS keys to the lead-in on DVD-R media, but I don't have practical knowledge of the subject (I don't make a practice of copying DVDs) so I will defer to you on this one. Even if you can not do it with consumer grade off-the-shelf DVD burners, large-scale DVD counterfeiting operations surely have access to equipment that can write the keys.
I still think the idea that CSS is a form of copy protection is a con. They certainly use it to control how people access the media they pay for.
Fair enough. I don't know what country you live in, and I'm not sure if these requirements are the results of laws specifically prohibiting the use of someone's image without prior consent, or simply a reaction to civil suits that have succeeded in winning compensation for someone who was able to convince a judge they were not fairly compensated for the use of their image. I'm fairly certain getting everyone to sign a release is intended to ensure distribution of your film can not be held up by litigation, rather than complying with legislation. It's "good practice," not a legal requirement. Then again, there may be laws specifically geared toward commercial ventures like film productions.
As to special consideration being given to newspapers and the like, you don't need a license to be a news photographer. You don't even need to be employed by a newspaper. I've sold photos "free lance" to newspapers. And I've never been asked to provide a release signed by the subject. Do I get special consideration as a free lance photographer if I intend to sell the photos I take?
I don't know. I'm not trying to argue. It's just that a lot of people think you need to get permission to take photos in a public place and I know of no laws (in Canada, at any rate) that require this. There is actually an interesting blog on this subject over at flickr.
The question - as I see it - is do you know of any laws (in either the US or Canada) that would prevent me from taking a photo of a stranger and posting it on Facebook or Flickr or my own website without their express written or verbal (on camera) consent? I'm not talking about site policies, I'm talking actual laws that citizens must follow.
I don't know of any, but again I am happy to be corrected.
If people didn't steal so many copies of their product they would not have to result to such restrictive DRM.
Ah, the myth that DRM prevents people from "stealing."
Let's see...
1. Put DRM-encumbered DVD in drive 2. Type "dd if=/dev/hdd of=/media/some_hollywood_blockbuster.iso" 3. Burn resulting image file to a blank DVD (or mount it as a loopback device and point your media player at the mount point).
DRM didn't do much to stop us from making a copy, did it? I simply made an exact copy of the original DVD, complete with DRM. After all, that's what my player is expecting.
Let try another experiment
1. Put DRM-encumbered Region 1 DVD in a Region 3 player 2. Oops, won't play
Or
1. Put DRM-encumbered DVD in any player 2. Try to fast-forward through Copyright warning, or commercials 3. Oops, can't do that either.
Let's make a 30 second clip of the movie so we can criticize it, or parody it, or perhaps use it in a derivative work. Oh, right, we can't because we would have to decrypt it with something like DeCSS, which the DMCA prohibits.
The purpose of DRM is to control how the paying customer uses the media they purchase. But if they said that, it might make it more difficult to paint themselves as the victim and convince taxpayers that we should continue to enforce their copyrights while they erode the concept of Fair Use with DRM and EULAs.
It sounds much more reasonable to say "we need DRM to stop people from stealing."
And, I guess you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to defend their rights when said rights are violated, right?
That would contradict what I said about reforming copyright law to ensure that the rights of citizens to make fair use of copyrighted works are respected and the work enters the Public Domain after a reasonable length of time, wouldn't it?
After all, if copyright holders do not have the right to defend their rights, why should you, or anyone else, have the right to defend your rights?
The rights of copyright holders are defended by the public, which is why it is so important that the rights of the public are also respected. If copyright holders bore the cost of defending their copyrights, an argument could perhaps be made that the citizen is not entitled to make Fair Use of copyrighted works. But we both know that's not the case, don't we?
you hypocrite
Name calling is usually a good indication you've run out of arguments.
I think that is more "good practice" than a legal requirement. For example, local news programs will often set up at remote locations - say where an event is being held - and capture numerous images of citizens passing by during the broadcast. I doubt very much they have interns chasing these people down to obtain a release, especially given these broadcasts are often live. Another example: can the defendant in a trial prevent me from publishing a photo of him leaving the courthouse because I didn't get a release signed?
I know reality type shows will blur the faces of people who presumably didn't sign a release, but I think this is just to avoid the hassle of fighting court battles with people looking to make a buck. If I use your image in an advertisement to sell a product without your permission, you would probably have a good case, but if I'm shooting a concert or a sporting event and catch you in the shot do I have really to run in to the stands and get you to sign something?
Also, laws vary from place to place. I know of no laws in Canada (where I live) that require me to obtain permission to publish a photo I take of someone in a public place, and I worked as a newspaper photographer for a time many years ago and shot pictures of lots of people, some who didn't want to be photographed. I never had an editor ask if I got the person's permission to publish the photo.
Mind you, IANAL, and would love to hear about it if you know something I don't.
Copyright is a legal right granted by the government. Making an unauthorized copy is a violation of the copyright holders rights.
Granted by the government and enforced at taxpayer expense.
DRM is incompatible with copyright. DRM prevents citizens from making Fair Use (as it is called in the US) of a copyrighted work, and it also prevents the work from eventually entering the Public Domain. Works that employ DRM should not receive copyright protection, as the authors of the work have elected to limit how the work may be used with DRM. If they want to impose limits beyond what are allowed for under copyright laws, that should forfeit the protection they receive from taxpayers.
In Canada, people are starting to see through straw man arguments like the one you put forth in your post, and are demanding reforms to copyright laws that ensure the needs of citizens are addressed. It only makes sense - we're the ones paying to enforce it.
What happens 10 years down the line when I try to play a game or watch a Movie that has some funky DRM on it, but I can't because the company is out of business or has shutdown the DRM server.
Which again demonstrates the true purpose of these schemes: to prevent you from enjoying the media you purchased ten years down the road. They don't want us listening to our old music collections, or re-playing classic games. They want us to buy the flavour of the month today, and again tomorrow. They want us to pay something every time we listen to a piece of music, watch a movie or play a game.
DRM is always about access control, not copy protection. CSS exists to prevent you from playing a movie in a region not approved by the studio, or from skipping past commercials. It does nothing to stop you from making a copy. The DRM in this game essentially forces the player to ask permission every time he wants to play the game he purchased.
At the company's whim, that answer may one day be "no." I'm sure this is written somewhere in their EULA. If it isn't, what the hell, they can change it at any time they like without notice.
I'm always confused with the objection people have to cameras in public places. I always carry a camera with me, and I will not be told by anyone that I cannot make photos in a public place.
Mind you, photography is something I do because I enjoy it. I don't do it to be confrontational. If someone really objects to being photographed, I will generally stop taking their picture, unless they happen to be doing something that I believe needs to be documented.
Usually when someone asks why I am taking pictures, I engage them in conversation and even show them the shots I got of them. Again, if they really object I may delete the shots of them out of courtesy, but I am not obliged to do so.
So I can't very well object to being photographed myself in public places, whether it's by CCTV cameras or other citizens like myself.
My understanding of the process is the site owner files a counter notice and the ISP is obliged to put the site back up. It is then up to the courts to decide who committed perjury.
Not sure how you could do better than a day. We get next day from Dell, and we pay a lot for that coverage. Spend five minutes answering the usual questions (capacitors budging? LEDs flashing? Did you try turning it off and on again?), and the next day I receive either a power supply, a mother board or one a new drive via UPS. Return old part in same box and never give it another thought.
Blackberrys, OTOH, just get wiped and returned to RIM. I would think you would do that with a Mac, too. I wouldn't even know how to open one up, and if I did manage to get it open I'd feel the same way I feel when I look under the hood of any modern vehicle. Where's the damn carburetor?
So I guess the question for me would be does Mac offer a next day replacement service, and what does it cost? We'll leave aside for now what to do about the proprietary, Windows only software that our customer base compels us to use.
With all the comments about Twitter's various sock puppets, I thought wouldn't it be something if willyhill was also a sock puppet, but didn't know it. Then I thought, if that's the case, maybe we're all twitter sock puppets. That made me think of the Tommy Westphall Universe and, well...
If you haven't seen it, I recommend the documentary about the making of St. Anger. Very dysfunctional. I felt bad for Bob Rock, who kinda got stuck in the middle of it. Lars visits his dad to play him the new stuff, and he basically says it's shit. Tough love from the old man, but you gotta wonder why they were putting themselves through the hell the recording sessions appeared to be.
I moseyed on over to the BBC website... I cannot figure out how to enjoy this programme legally.
This is what the rest of the world experiences when they try to watch shows on the websites of U.S. networks. It's a shame, too, as the alternatives - downloading high-quality torrnets you can watch in your player of choice, for example - is already more attractive than being forced to watch a lower quality stream in an embedded player, complete with commercials. I would truly like to support the producers of these shows (or those who finance their production) but I don't want to compromise on quality, and I don't want to be forced to watch some crappy stream in an embedded player that doesn't work in my browser/operating system of choice.
It is a little odd, but it's actually the experiment that is being referred to (unless they've changed it since you wrote that).
Speaking of the Columbia, I found this quite interesting:
Most of the data from the experiment, called Critical Viscosity of Xenon-2 (CVX-2), was beamed down to scientists on the ground before the shuttle's destruction during reentry into Earth's atmosphere. Remarkably, the hard drive from the experiment survived the disaster and was found amid the wreckage, and technicians were able to recover the rest of the data.
It doesn't make me feel any better about the loss of Columbia but at least their work survived as a legacy.
DRM is theft because it prevents fair use, which is the citizen's end of the copyright deal. Circumventing the DRM present on a DVD or CD in order to criticize it, for example, or parody it, or learn from it is a felony in the US. Also, copyrighted works are supposed to enter the Public Domain eventually (yeah, call me a thief again) but the presence of DRM inhibits the ability of these works to do that.
I know I'm replying to a troll, but I don't want a reasonable person reading this in the future to get the mistaken impression you had made some salient point, so I'll put some more effort to my response. The argument you are making was the same one Judge Kaplin made in the MPAA vs 2600 case - if you want to exercise Fair Use on a piece of government-enforced, copyright-protected media you purchased just buy it in a format that doesn't use DRM. Nice bit of logic there, son. See if you can follow it through to its logical conclusion without any more help from me.
DRM rarely does anything to prevent making identical copies of a piece of media, but rather seeks to control how the purchaser of that media uses it. Like to limit what part of the world you are entitled to play it in, or to force you to watch the commercials and those cute little warnings where they pretend they owe nothing to the public who pay to enforce their monopolies and jail those who flout them.
The purpose of DRM is to control how the paying customer uses the media they purchase.
Stop spreading the lie that DRM is about stopping people from "stealing," kid.
I simply asked ScrewMaster if he wanted to "make a sacrifice for his ideals."
No, you asked him:
"If one found merit in your suggestion, how would you propose to carry it out?"
Then cited a fable about belling a cat. I speak for no one but myself, and frequently misinterpret what others say, but I took your sentence and the link to the wiki article as chiding the OP that "IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES."[2]
If you had intended to ask Mr. ScrewMaster whether he was willing to back up his beliefs with actions, it may have been clearer to the rest of us if you had been more specific.
I'm not a madam or a lady, btw. ^_^
My apologies. I assumed - based on your handle MollyB - that you were a woman, much like you assumed ScrewMaster was a "Sir." (Although I would tend to go along with you on that one).
Sir, I refer you to the concept Belling the Cat. If one found merit in your suggestion, how would you propose to carry it out? (takes a giant step backwards)
Madam, I draw your attention to the second section of that Wikipedia article you linked to, which reads
Some scholars have suggested an alternative message to the fable beyond the standard message that "it is easy to propose impossible remedies." They hypothesize that Aesop is not discouraging utopian thought, but rather that he is suggesting that an individual willing to suggest a difficult solution must also be willing to pay the price that the solution details. According to the theory, belling the cat may be an appropriate solution for the mice if the long-term gain outweighs the mice that would be killed by the cat while attempting to put a bell around its neck. This analogy has been applied to joining the military, police department, or fire department.[3]
Also, if you follow the military.com link cited, in that article the author states
If you do a quick Internet search, you'll find several hundred minor variations on this story, nearly all credited to Aesop. Quite a few versions have an Aesopian-sounding moral tacked on the end: 'It's easy to propose impossible solutions.' I've yet to find that (supposed) moral in any print translation of Aesop's Fables, or in any historical reference to Aesop. In fact, I've never seen it anywhere apart from the Internet, leading me to believe that some helpful soul grafted it on about twenty-five hundred years after the original story was penned.
I take your point, you should be willing to consider the sacrifice necessary to achieve your goals, but I think our world is full of examples of people doing just that - making sacrifices for their ideals.
Doesn't this just show how easy it is to stalk someone using the internet?
No, I think it shows how easy it is to use the Internet to track down a guy driving around town like an idiot in a rare, right-hand-drive car waving his distinguishing feature at anyone who flashes him the "rock 'n roll" sign.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks that way, doesn't it? Microsoft seems to be trying to spend the competition away. The only logical thing to do is buy the cheaper XP machine and put Linux on it.
I certainly agree with you on that point. Regardless of legality, respecting other people's boundaries is key. Funny, too, how people who like to work behind the camera will do almost anything to avoid getting caught in front of one.
I knew there was a reason I liked you! Days like today make me feel lucky to be a photographer living on the west coast.
I was of the understanding that there are firmware hacks out there that enable writing the CSS keys to the lead-in on DVD-R media, but I don't have practical knowledge of the subject (I don't make a practice of copying DVDs) so I will defer to you on this one. Even if you can not do it with consumer grade off-the-shelf DVD burners, large-scale DVD counterfeiting operations surely have access to equipment that can write the keys.
I still think the idea that CSS is a form of copy protection is a con. They certainly use it to control how people access the media they pay for.
Fair enough. I don't know what country you live in, and I'm not sure if these requirements are the results of laws specifically prohibiting the use of someone's image without prior consent, or simply a reaction to civil suits that have succeeded in winning compensation for someone who was able to convince a judge they were not fairly compensated for the use of their image. I'm fairly certain getting everyone to sign a release is intended to ensure distribution of your film can not be held up by litigation, rather than complying with legislation. It's "good practice," not a legal requirement. Then again, there may be laws specifically geared toward commercial ventures like film productions.
As to special consideration being given to newspapers and the like, you don't need a license to be a news photographer. You don't even need to be employed by a newspaper. I've sold photos "free lance" to newspapers. And I've never been asked to provide a release signed by the subject. Do I get special consideration as a free lance photographer if I intend to sell the photos I take?
I don't know. I'm not trying to argue. It's just that a lot of people think you need to get permission to take photos in a public place and I know of no laws (in Canada, at any rate) that require this. There is actually an interesting blog on this subject over at flickr.
The question - as I see it - is do you know of any laws (in either the US or Canada) that would prevent me from taking a photo of a stranger and posting it on Facebook or Flickr or my own website without their express written or verbal (on camera) consent? I'm not talking about site policies, I'm talking actual laws that citizens must follow.
I don't know of any, but again I am happy to be corrected.
Ah, the myth that DRM prevents people from "stealing."
Let's see
1. Put DRM-encumbered DVD in drive
2. Type "dd if=/dev/hdd of=/media/some_hollywood_blockbuster.iso"
3. Burn resulting image file to a blank DVD (or mount it as a loopback device and point your media player at the mount point).
DRM didn't do much to stop us from making a copy, did it? I simply made an exact copy of the original DVD, complete with DRM. After all, that's what my player is expecting.
Let try another experiment
1. Put DRM-encumbered Region 1 DVD in a Region 3 player
2. Oops, won't play
Or
1. Put DRM-encumbered DVD in any player
2. Try to fast-forward through Copyright warning, or commercials
3. Oops, can't do that either.
Let's make a 30 second clip of the movie so we can criticize it, or parody it, or perhaps use it in a derivative work. Oh, right, we can't because we would have to decrypt it with something like DeCSS, which the DMCA prohibits.
The purpose of DRM is to control how the paying customer uses the media they purchase. But if they said that, it might make it more difficult to paint themselves as the victim and convince taxpayers that we should continue to enforce their copyrights while they erode the concept of Fair Use with DRM and EULAs.
It sounds much more reasonable to say "we need DRM to stop people from stealing."
Don't spread their lies for them.
That would contradict what I said about reforming copyright law to ensure that the rights of citizens to make fair use of copyrighted works are respected and the work enters the Public Domain after a reasonable length of time, wouldn't it?
The rights of copyright holders are defended by the public, which is why it is so important that the rights of the public are also respected. If copyright holders bore the cost of defending their copyrights, an argument could perhaps be made that the citizen is not entitled to make Fair Use of copyrighted works. But we both know that's not the case, don't we?
Name calling is usually a good indication you've run out of arguments.
I think that is more "good practice" than a legal requirement. For example, local news programs will often set up at remote locations - say where an event is being held - and capture numerous images of citizens passing by during the broadcast. I doubt very much they have interns chasing these people down to obtain a release, especially given these broadcasts are often live. Another example: can the defendant in a trial prevent me from publishing a photo of him leaving the courthouse because I didn't get a release signed?
I know reality type shows will blur the faces of people who presumably didn't sign a release, but I think this is just to avoid the hassle of fighting court battles with people looking to make a buck. If I use your image in an advertisement to sell a product without your permission, you would probably have a good case, but if I'm shooting a concert or a sporting event and catch you in the shot do I have really to run in to the stands and get you to sign something?
Also, laws vary from place to place. I know of no laws in Canada (where I live) that require me to obtain permission to publish a photo I take of someone in a public place, and I worked as a newspaper photographer for a time many years ago and shot pictures of lots of people, some who didn't want to be photographed. I never had an editor ask if I got the person's permission to publish the photo.
Mind you, IANAL, and would love to hear about it if you know something I don't.
Granted by the government and enforced at taxpayer expense.
DRM is incompatible with copyright. DRM prevents citizens from making Fair Use (as it is called in the US) of a copyrighted work, and it also prevents the work from eventually entering the Public Domain. Works that employ DRM should not receive copyright protection, as the authors of the work have elected to limit how the work may be used with DRM. If they want to impose limits beyond what are allowed for under copyright laws, that should forfeit the protection they receive from taxpayers.
In Canada, people are starting to see through straw man arguments like the one you put forth in your post, and are demanding reforms to copyright laws that ensure the needs of citizens are addressed. It only makes sense - we're the ones paying to enforce it.
Which again demonstrates the true purpose of these schemes: to prevent you from enjoying the media you purchased ten years down the road. They don't want us listening to our old music collections, or re-playing classic games. They want us to buy the flavour of the month today, and again tomorrow. They want us to pay something every time we listen to a piece of music, watch a movie or play a game.
DRM is always about access control, not copy protection. CSS exists to prevent you from playing a movie in a region not approved by the studio, or from skipping past commercials. It does nothing to stop you from making a copy. The DRM in this game essentially forces the player to ask permission every time he wants to play the game he purchased.
At the company's whim, that answer may one day be "no." I'm sure this is written somewhere in their EULA. If it isn't, what the hell, they can change it at any time they like without notice.
I'm always confused with the objection people have to cameras in public places. I always carry a camera with me, and I will not be told by anyone that I cannot make photos in a public place.
Mind you, photography is something I do because I enjoy it. I don't do it to be confrontational. If someone really objects to being photographed, I will generally stop taking their picture, unless they happen to be doing something that I believe needs to be documented.
Usually when someone asks why I am taking pictures, I engage them in conversation and even show them the shots I got of them. Again, if they really object I may delete the shots of them out of courtesy, but I am not obliged to do so.
So I can't very well object to being photographed myself in public places, whether it's by CCTV cameras or other citizens like myself.
My understanding of the process is the site owner files a counter notice and the ISP is obliged to put the site back up. It is then up to the courts to decide who committed perjury.
Not sure how you could do better than a day. We get next day from Dell, and we pay a lot for that coverage. Spend five minutes answering the usual questions (capacitors budging? LEDs flashing? Did you try turning it off and on again?), and the next day I receive either a power supply, a mother board or one a new drive via UPS. Return old part in same box and never give it another thought.
Blackberrys, OTOH, just get wiped and returned to RIM. I would think you would do that with a Mac, too. I wouldn't even know how to open one up, and if I did manage to get it open I'd feel the same way I feel when I look under the hood of any modern vehicle. Where's the damn carburetor?
So I guess the question for me would be does Mac offer a next day replacement service, and what does it cost? We'll leave aside for now what to do about the proprietary, Windows only software that our customer base compels us to use.
Good to hear. When the MPAA vs 2600 case was on, I read all of the depositions and transcripts for that case. I'm sure I'll do the same with this one.
Too bad, though, I would have loved the opportunity to watch ol' Darl Vader being grilled by Novell's lawyers.
Does anyone know if the trial is being broadcast anywhere? If it is, torrents would sure be appreciated.
With all the comments about Twitter's various sock puppets, I thought wouldn't it be something if willyhill was also a sock puppet, but didn't know it. Then I thought, if that's the case, maybe we're all twitter sock puppets. That made me think of the Tommy Westphall Universe and, well ...
Okay, I'll go back to my finger painting now.
This is starting to remind me of Fight Club.
Maybe Slashdot, Microsoft and even the Internet itself are just part of the Tommy Westphall Universe.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend the documentary about the making of St. Anger. Very dysfunctional. I felt bad for Bob Rock, who kinda got stuck in the middle of it. Lars visits his dad to play him the new stuff, and he basically says it's shit. Tough love from the old man, but you gotta wonder why they were putting themselves through the hell the recording sessions appeared to be.
This is what the rest of the world experiences when they try to watch shows on the websites of U.S. networks. It's a shame, too, as the alternatives - downloading high-quality torrnets you can watch in your player of choice, for example - is already more attractive than being forced to watch a lower quality stream in an embedded player, complete with commercials. I would truly like to support the producers of these shows (or those who finance their production) but I don't want to compromise on quality, and I don't want to be forced to watch some crappy stream in an embedded player that doesn't work in my browser/operating system of choice.
Speaking of the Columbia, I found this quite interesting:
It doesn't make me feel any better about the loss of Columbia but at least their work survived as a legacy.
DRM is theft because it prevents fair use, which is the citizen's end of the copyright deal. Circumventing the DRM present on a DVD or CD in order to criticize it, for example, or parody it, or learn from it is a felony in the US. Also, copyrighted works are supposed to enter the Public Domain eventually (yeah, call me a thief again) but the presence of DRM inhibits the ability of these works to do that.
I know I'm replying to a troll, but I don't want a reasonable person reading this in the future to get the mistaken impression you had made some salient point, so I'll put some more effort to my response. The argument you are making was the same one Judge Kaplin made in the MPAA vs 2600 case - if you want to exercise Fair Use on a piece of government-enforced, copyright-protected media you purchased just buy it in a format that doesn't use DRM. Nice bit of logic there, son. See if you can follow it through to its logical conclusion without any more help from me.
DRM rarely does anything to prevent making identical copies of a piece of media, but rather seeks to control how the purchaser of that media uses it. Like to limit what part of the world you are entitled to play it in, or to force you to watch the commercials and those cute little warnings where they pretend they owe nothing to the public who pay to enforce their monopolies and jail those who flout them.
The purpose of DRM is to control how the paying customer uses the media they purchase.
Stop spreading the lie that DRM is about stopping people from "stealing," kid.
No, you asked him:
"If one found merit in your suggestion, how would you propose to carry it out?"
Then cited a fable about belling a cat. I speak for no one but myself, and frequently misinterpret what others say, but I took your sentence and the link to the wiki article as chiding the OP that "IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES."[2]
If you had intended to ask Mr. ScrewMaster whether he was willing to back up his beliefs with actions, it may have been clearer to the rest of us if you had been more specific.
My apologies. I assumed - based on your handle MollyB - that you were a woman, much like you assumed ScrewMaster was a "Sir." (Although I would tend to go along with you on that one).
DRM is Theft
Madam, I draw your attention to the second section of that Wikipedia article you linked to, which reads
Also, if you follow the military.com link cited, in that article the author states
I take your point, you should be willing to consider the sacrifice necessary to achieve your goals, but I think our world is full of examples of people doing just that - making sacrifices for their ideals.
The Wiki article feels a little hinky.
No, I think it shows how easy it is to use the Internet to track down a guy driving around town like an idiot in a rare, right-hand-drive car waving his distinguishing feature at anyone who flashes him the "rock 'n roll" sign.