4 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoIs supporting a EME the same thing as promoting it?
- MacsHeadroom 12y agoOne 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 agoPlease explain. In what way is it totally bad for davexunit?
- mpyne 12y agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoSo, a doctor that doesn't offer injections of carcinogens is denying patients their choice?
- josteink 12y agoYou'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.