3 ms·

I believe the Open Web died as soon as they Caved to MS/Google on DRM, and choose to oppose the EFF in their battle to prevent DRM in becoming a standard. Mozi

by syshum 9y ago

I believe the Open Web died as soon as they Caved to MS/Google on DRM, and choose to oppose the EFF in their battle to prevent DRM in becoming a standard. Mozilla is now an enemy of the Open Web, the EFF is one of the last organizations left actually standing up for the Open Web. Mozilla is just another Commercial Browser with anti-user features To be clear I am not laying all the blame at the feet of Mozilla, clearly the Open Web is not an important issue, as even in Linux circles there are countless people that have chosen Google over freedom, making endless excuses and justifications about why choosing chrome was just pragmatic but in making that "pragmatic" choice they sent a clear market signal that performance and netflix was more important the Open web, privacy, and user freedom. They sent a clear market signal to Mozilla that principles do not matter, and Mozilla took that market signal to heart and turned its back on the Principles of the Open web and privacy to focus more on Performance and Usability to appease those users

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ubernostrum 9y ago
So, what would you do to oppose, say, EME? What cost would you be willing to pay? Would you be OK with, for example, some number of people being badly injured or possibly dying if it would guarantee a permanent end to DRM? How many people? This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms). So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?
- AndrewCHM 9y ago
  And strengthening the stranglehold of copyright holders, doesn't help them ruin lives in a similar way through court systems?
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    DRM will exist with or without EME, and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. So EME versus no EME is a wash there, and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" -- it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music. Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99.99999% agree with me will be first against the wall when the revolution comes" school of thinking.
    - syshum 9y ago
      >>DRM will exist with or without EME Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard >and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all >and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" No it can only be done by principled stands >it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music. That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no... That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5. That distorts the market and is the exact reason MS, Google and Netflix wanted to ensure it was in the Standard so they would not have to explain to the market why the DRM was there, why X device did not work with their products or have to compete in the market place on DRM or no DRM. DRM is "standard" now so there is no market competition for it. I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be) that say "DRM was inevitable and putting in the standard would not change anything" Well then why put it in the standard? If it does not change anything, if it does not change the market, if having it in the standard is pointless why did MS/Google/Netflix/MPAA fight so hard to get it in? because it does in fact matter. It does in fact change the market, and the conversation. Something being a "Standard" normalizes it in the market, allowing it to deployed faster, easier and with less consumer backlash. That was the entire point of the EME Spec, to normalize DRM to the consumer to make it less controversial, and more palatable
- syshum 9y ago
  >>This is not hyperbole yes, yes it is The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it. So imagine a world in which you get your way. Every browser is forced to un-implement EME, the standard is force-amended to not include it anymore, etc. Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties. What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor? It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost. And this is where single-issue "you are 100% with me or 100% my enemy" stances are proven to be utterly morally bankrupt. It's not just that you implicitly accept that human cost as a means to serving your end. It's that you won't even acknowledge that the cost exists. That puts you in the company of some very evil people, and should perhaps get you to re-think your position.
    - syshum 9y ago
      >>>Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties. EME is big binary blob plugins called CDM's, EME is just a different API to access the binary plugins that will have (and have already had) all kinds of security issues >What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor? Hyperbolic Much, Everyone Info is already out there now and it was not Flash or Java or any browser vunerablity at all that caused it. The idea that the source of people having their Credit Card data and other personal info stolen is the browser shows your ignorance in the field of InfoSec. Browser are a source for Fraud and Ransomware. Databases of Ruin are targets for ID Theft, that is the database of Large Corporations like Equifax, Target, Yahoo, Anthem, Sony, Adobe, Ebay, etc etc etc Companies that collect and store PII, they are not hacking individual computers to obtain PII, they are dumping databases >>It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost. So you assume in this moronic equation of your that there are zero lives lost in the implementation of EME, The sharing of knowledge via the open web is a huge driver of getting people out of poverty, and improving the lives of billions world wide. In change political regimes that abuse, and torture their population. How many lives will be lost because all knowledge is locked into wall gardens and accessible only via "approved" platforms, and only for "approved" purposes.

by syshum 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ubernostrum 9y ago

So, what would you do to oppose, say, EME? What cost would you be willing to pay? Would you be OK with, for example, some number of people being badly injured or possibly dying if it would guarantee a permanent end to DRM? How many people? This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms). So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?

AndrewCHM 9y ago
And strengthening the stranglehold of copyright holders, doesn't help them ruin lives in a similar way through court systems?
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  DRM will exist with or without EME, and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. So EME versus no EME is a wash there, and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" -- it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music. Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99.99999% agree with me will be first against the wall when the revolution comes" school of thinking.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>DRM will exist with or without EME Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard >and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all >and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" No it can only be done by principled stands >it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music. That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no... That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5. That distorts the market and is the exact reason MS, Google and Netflix wanted to ensure it was in the Standard so they would not have to explain to the market why the DRM was there, why X device did not work with their products or have to compete in the market place on DRM or no DRM. DRM is "standard" now so there is no market competition for it. I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be) that say "DRM was inevitable and putting in the standard would not change anything" Well then why put it in the standard? If it does not change anything, if it does not change the market, if having it in the standard is pointless why did MS/Google/Netflix/MPAA fight so hard to get it in? because it does in fact matter. It does in fact change the market, and the conversation. Something being a "Standard" normalizes it in the market, allowing it to deployed faster, easier and with less consumer backlash. That was the entire point of the EME Spec, to normalize DRM to the consumer to make it less controversial, and more palatable
syshum 9y ago
>>This is not hyperbole yes, yes it is The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it. So imagine a world in which you get your way. Every browser is forced to un-implement EME, the standard is force-amended to not include it anymore, etc. Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties. What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor? It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost. And this is where single-issue "you are 100% with me or 100% my enemy" stances are proven to be utterly morally bankrupt. It's not just that you implicitly accept that human cost as a means to serving your end. It's that you won't even acknowledge that the cost exists. That puts you in the company of some very evil people, and should perhaps get you to re-think your position.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>>Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties. EME is big binary blob plugins called CDM's, EME is just a different API to access the binary plugins that will have (and have already had) all kinds of security issues >What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor? Hyperbolic Much, Everyone Info is already out there now and it was not Flash or Java or any browser vunerablity at all that caused it. The idea that the source of people having their Credit Card data and other personal info stolen is the browser shows your ignorance in the field of InfoSec. Browser are a source for Fraud and Ransomware. Databases of Ruin are targets for ID Theft, that is the database of Large Corporations like Equifax, Target, Yahoo, Anthem, Sony, Adobe, Ebay, etc etc etc Companies that collect and store PII, they are not hacking individual computers to obtain PII, they are dumping databases >>It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost. So you assume in this moronic equation of your that there are zero lives lost in the implementation of EME, The sharing of knowledge via the open web is a huge driver of getting people out of poverty, and improving the lives of billions world wide. In change political regimes that abuse, and torture their population. How many lives will be lost because all knowledge is locked into wall gardens and accessible only via "approved" platforms, and only for "approved" purposes.