5 ms·

>We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content r

>We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM. Then so be it. If Mozilla's mission is to improve and defend the "open" web, then EME should never have been considered for implementation. They shouldn't sacrifice their goals for the sake of market share.

ygjb 12y ago
Improving and defending the open web is not just about fighting the good fight on DRM. The Mozilla mission also calls for us to fight for users right to make choices[0] as well. Mozilla could choose not to implement EME, and draw that line in the sand, but that means denying users the option of continuing to use Firefox to access content they choose to access. My preference (both as a long time Firefox user, and a Mozillian) is to see Mozilla allow me to access content, and continue to support the Mozilla mission rather than switch to an alternate browser to access content[1]. [0] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ [1] PS... you can argue that I shouldn't access encumbered content, but you are wasting your breath (or bits) ;)
- davexunit 12y ago
  Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing. You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content! Just because users want Netflix in Firefox doesn't mean that it's the right thing to provide.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing. You should support (not promote) doing it within Firefox if you want users to continue to use Firefox; you could even do so with a UI that provided security warnings associated with the use of W3C EME, which would discourage users from doing it, but not make Firefox an non-usable browser for people who do choose to consume that kind of content.
  - jamesgeck0 12y ago
    Is supporting a EME the same thing as promoting it?
    - MacsHeadroom 12y ago
      One does not preclude the other, no.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    "Firefox is about empowering users, unless those users should be so bold as to do something that's totally bad for me–I mean, them"
    - gpvos 12y ago
      Please explain. In what way is it totally bad for davexunit?
      - mpyne 12y ago
        The logic seems to be that if Firefox supports EME, that movie producers will be able to switch to using it without business pressure to release completely DRM-free versions of media. It's an argument I'm partial to myself, having run a Linux box for more than a decade, but it's still an argument based on self-interest.
  - zanny 12y ago
    The problem is nobody actually understands how digial media works. They have lived for decades now where on personal computers audio and video were scarce resources you got through curated gatekeepers. Whenever I just copy stuff between computers everyone in my extended family is bowled over. It is literal shell shock to find out that this stuff is literally electricity that you can do whatever you want with if it isn't behind uncrackable encryption.
  - ygjb 12y ago
    | You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME Mozilla is if they claim to be an open source, standards based browser that promotes user choice. If Mozilla doesn't adhere to standards, and users are denied content because of that, then Mozilla cherry picking standards is explicitly denying users their choice.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
      So, a doctor that doesn't offer injections of carcinogens is denying patients their choice?
  - josteink 12y ago
    You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content! These are the same companies which are refusing to deliver content to Linux and open platforms today, which will continue to do so in the future. But now they can claim it's standards-compliant so it's the open-platforms which has a problem, and not them! This thing clearly stinks.
Ygg2 12y ago
You think most users will care if it ships EME or no? Like seriously?! I'd love to live in that world. Basically if Netflix doesn't work with Mozilla who's gonna be blamed? Netflix that works on Chrome? Google, whose browser plays Netflix or Mozilla that doesn't open Netflix? If you answered Mozilla, you live in real world :( No, this one is squarely on shoulders of those that supported that damned crud of W3C standard. If Mozilla doesn't back this up, it will be marginalized even more and only Google, Microsoft and Apple will decide on the future of open web. And we all know what that will mean for the open web.
- phillc73 12y ago
  Who gives a fuck about Netflix? What percentage of the Internet population are ever likely to or are even interested in subscribing to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime etc? What grates me most is that if Mozilla was really targeting the developing world, as per their aims with cheap FirefoxOS phones, then there would be no need to implement this, which simply panders to the needs of first/western world media companies demanding DRM on their content. I'm exceedingly disappointed with Mozilla for making this decision.
  - bzbarsky 12y ago
    One issue here is that Mozilla's revenue and ability to influence decisions at the W3C may depend more strongly on their usage share in the "developed" world than the "developing" world... The W3C issue may be even more of a problem than the revenue issue.
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    Joe does. Also I have no doubt that Google would DRM Youtube if that would: A) Prevent copyright holders from complaining B) Give Chrome bigger market share (or reduced FF to an outlier like Opera) I'm not ambivalent, I'd like to see it as opt-in only, because DRM in Fx will be a major vector for viruses.
joncrocks 12y ago
Think about winning the battle vs. winning the war. Mozilla could draw a line here, and no further, and not implement EME. But the consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk." Suddenly Mozilla lose a large amount of revenue, development is scaled back, and the relevance of FF is reduced. Eventually FF is marginalised and Mozilla no longer involved in discussions about the future of the web. I think everyone would be disappointed if that happened. The issue here is that the W3C is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Laws passed by governments are in opposition to reality, and the only way to solve the problem at hand is security by obscurity and 'trusted' devices. While it's noble of Mozilla to resist change of this type, it's fighting an uphill battle against legal precedents and legislation that is trickling down into technology. I don't think it's a battle that winnable until changes are made to IP frameworks the world over.
- angersock 12y ago
  But the consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk." Then maybe those users deserve the loss of their freedoms.
- josteink 12y ago
  he consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk." You mean like it already doesn't in most of the world, because of arbitrary geographical restrictions? I can't see this causing noticeable damage.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ygjb 12y ago

Improving and defending the open web is not just about fighting the good fight on DRM. The Mozilla mission also calls for us to fight for users right to make choices[0] as well. Mozilla could choose not to implement EME, and draw that line in the sand, but that means denying users the option of continuing to use Firefox to access content they choose to access. My preference (both as a long time Firefox user, and a Mozillian) is to see Mozilla allow me to access content, and continue to support the Mozilla mission rather than switch to an alternate browser to access content[1]. [0] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ [1] PS... you can argue that I shouldn't access encumbered content, but you are wasting your breath (or bits) ;)

davexunit 12y ago
Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing. You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content! Just because users want Netflix in Firefox doesn't mean that it's the right thing to provide.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing. You should support (not promote) doing it within Firefox if you want users to continue to use Firefox; you could even do so with a UI that provided security warnings associated with the use of W3C EME, which would discourage users from doing it, but not make Firefox an non-usable browser for people who do choose to consume that kind of content.
- jamesgeck0 12y ago
  Is supporting a EME the same thing as promoting it?
  - MacsHeadroom 12y ago
    One does not preclude the other, no.
- mpyne 12y ago
  "Firefox is about empowering users, unless those users should be so bold as to do something that's totally bad for me–I mean, them"
  - gpvos 12y ago
    Please explain. In what way is it totally bad for davexunit?
    - mpyne 12y ago
      The logic seems to be that if Firefox supports EME, that movie producers will be able to switch to using it without business pressure to release completely DRM-free versions of media. It's an argument I'm partial to myself, having run a Linux box for more than a decade, but it's still an argument based on self-interest.
- zanny 12y ago
  The problem is nobody actually understands how digial media works. They have lived for decades now where on personal computers audio and video were scarce resources you got through curated gatekeepers. Whenever I just copy stuff between computers everyone in my extended family is bowled over. It is literal shell shock to find out that this stuff is literally electricity that you can do whatever you want with if it isn't behind uncrackable encryption.
- ygjb 12y ago
  | You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME Mozilla is if they claim to be an open source, standards based browser that promotes user choice. If Mozilla doesn't adhere to standards, and users are denied content because of that, then Mozilla cherry picking standards is explicitly denying users their choice.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    So, a doctor that doesn't offer injections of carcinogens is denying patients their choice?
- josteink 12y ago
  You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content! These are the same companies which are refusing to deliver content to Linux and open platforms today, which will continue to do so in the future. But now they can claim it's standards-compliant so it's the open-platforms which has a problem, and not them! This thing clearly stinks.

Ygg2 12y ago

You think most users will care if it ships EME or no? Like seriously?! I'd love to live in that world. Basically if Netflix doesn't work with Mozilla who's gonna be blamed? Netflix that works on Chrome? Google, whose browser plays Netflix or Mozilla that doesn't open Netflix? If you answered Mozilla, you live in real world :( No, this one is squarely on shoulders of those that supported that damned crud of W3C standard. If Mozilla doesn't back this up, it will be marginalized even more and only Google, Microsoft and Apple will decide on the future of open web. And we all know what that will mean for the open web.

phillc73 12y ago
Who gives a fuck about Netflix? What percentage of the Internet population are ever likely to or are even interested in subscribing to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime etc? What grates me most is that if Mozilla was really targeting the developing world, as per their aims with cheap FirefoxOS phones, then there would be no need to implement this, which simply panders to the needs of first/western world media companies demanding DRM on their content. I'm exceedingly disappointed with Mozilla for making this decision.
- bzbarsky 12y ago
  One issue here is that Mozilla's revenue and ability to influence decisions at the W3C may depend more strongly on their usage share in the "developed" world than the "developing" world... The W3C issue may be even more of a problem than the revenue issue.
- Ygg2 12y ago
  Joe does. Also I have no doubt that Google would DRM Youtube if that would: A) Prevent copyright holders from complaining B) Give Chrome bigger market share (or reduced FF to an outlier like Opera) I'm not ambivalent, I'd like to see it as opt-in only, because DRM in Fx will be a major vector for viruses.

joncrocks 12y ago

Think about winning the battle vs. winning the war. Mozilla could draw a line here, and no further, and not implement EME. But the consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk." Suddenly Mozilla lose a large amount of revenue, development is scaled back, and the relevance of FF is reduced. Eventually FF is marginalised and Mozilla no longer involved in discussions about the future of the web. I think everyone would be disappointed if that happened. The issue here is that the W3C is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Laws passed by governments are in opposition to reality, and the only way to solve the problem at hand is security by obscurity and 'trusted' devices. While it's noble of Mozilla to resist change of this type, it's fighting an uphill battle against legal precedents and legislation that is trickling down into technology. I don't think it's a battle that winnable until changes are made to IP frameworks the world over.

angersock 12y ago
But the consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk." Then maybe those users deserve the loss of their freedoms.
josteink 12y ago
he consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk." You mean like it already doesn't in most of the world, because of arbitrary geographical restrictions? I can't see this causing noticeable damage.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]