[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[David van Deijk]

Zbigniew Łukasiak schreef op 16.02.2013 11:13:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Travis McCrea <me at travismccrea.com> 
> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> As it was said before (but I want to answer this question myself):
>> My statement still stands, the Pirate Party is for the free and open
>> sharing of information. If you want to "manage" the "rights" on how 
>> we
>> share your speech "digitally", then perhaps you should take a step 
>> back
>> and start reading what you preach on your website.
>
> There is a difference between requiring that the video is available 
> in
> a free codec and presented on free software and a requirement that it
> is never viewed using a non-free application or converted into a
> non-free codec.  I have a feeling that this distinction somewhere got
> blurred in this discussion.

So if it is also available in a free format on a free platform, nobody 
is
forcing anyone to use non-free software, or sign their privacy away.

So the question boils down to supporting nonfree platforms, rather than
forcing nonfree platforms. Which is perfectly legitimate to protest in
itself. But if it is about supporting/using nonfree, where do you draw
the line? At the software running on the camera? Will you give the 
speech
in a building that has proprietary software on its firealarm?

My primary objection to youtube would be the censorship that they apply
for many groups without much of a fight. shoot first ask questions 
later
mentality. For RMS it seems to be a different one that takes priority.
One that is so broad that it includes all flv streaming websites. This 
makes
it nearly impossible to share his speech on many of the modern 
platforms.
It is refreshing however, to see someone object having his material on
youtube because he considers it too restrictive, instead of most 
objectors
that view youtube as not being restrictive enough.

I still haven't seen the speech myself yet. But i expect the contents 
of
the speech to be more convincing to people than the sanction of having
it not be on youtube.

Al Gore did not have to travel the world promoting his film for it to 
be
watched. But it probably reached a wider audience because he did.

conclusion:

I am not asking to help force people to use nonfree platforms. I am
asking to be allowed to share this speech with people that have already
chosen this nonfree platform and help them liberate themselves.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
David van Deijk.
Kandidaat Tweede Kamer 2012,
Ledenraadslid 2013-
Piratenpartij Nederland
David.van.Deijk at piratenpartij.nl