Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox
New submitter ptr_88 writes: "The Free Software Foundation has opposed Mozilla's move to support DRM in the Firefox browser, partnering with Adobe to do so. The FSF said, '[We're] deeply disappointed in Mozilla's announcement. The decision compromises important principles in order to alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser market share. It allies Mozilla with a company hostile to the free software movement and to Mozilla's own fundamental ideals. ... We recognize that Mozilla is doing this reluctantly, and we trust these words coming from Mozilla much more than we do when they come from Microsoft or Amazon. At the same time, nearly everyone who implements DRM says they are forced to do it, and this lack of accountability is how the practice sustains itself.'"
Truly, we got an offer we couldn't decline.
Yes, thank god people are sacrificing their morals for some inane entertainment.
Valiantly fighting the good fight against the evil weasels who view our freedom as a threat
He is still a hero to many of us
Right. That's what Mozilla's well thought out, well argued statement was. Them "Sacrificing their morals."
And after all, it's always more important to attack the people on your side who are not living up to YOUR blessed level of total moral purity than... you know... actually accomplishing anything.
Oh wait, did I say "more important"? I meant "easier".
Firefox adopting DRM is not what is allowing the practice to continue, it is people consuming it. If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did. Until users decide not to view DRM content, the practice will continue, with or without Firefox.
What Firefox is doing is making the hard choice to be flexible and give users the opportunity to view the content or not, they are empowering their userbase to make the choice. Sadly, this means Firefox values user choice more than the FSF. I don't like DRM and I do not plan to view DRMed content, but many people will and if Firefox wants to survive they need to give their users that choice.
I've contacted the CTO at agal@mozilla.com about this on behalf of my company and let him know that Firefox's one core advantage over all the other major browsers has been it's strong stance on freedom. More people need to speak up if there is any hope to effect change though.
If Mozilla gives up its users they've got nothing left to offer. They need to stop following Chrome and Microsoft in a downward spiral. Copying Google & Microsoft's bad ideas and practices is not how you become loved. No, it's these types of bad practices which caused users to abandon those other major browsers in the first place and move to Firefox.
It's time for Mozilla to take charge and lead again. Show its users it's got what it takes to stand up for its users. With the right choices people might actually begin to respect the browser maker again.
Any perceived gain is not worth the moral loss.
Can't we just compile a version without EME? I mean Stallman should have just pointed that at least Firefox is truly free unlike IE, chrome and others whilst reminding us that we can just recompile sans EME. This is yet another case of failure withing the Free community; Destruction without ensuring the core values are witheld.
With the number of times /. posters point out how RMS arrived at some conclusion well before so many other people, and wrote something illustrating the point and his rationale, I would hope /. posters would recall that.
More DRM isn't going to play out well for the public as it has already failed for those who enjoy leveraging their fair-use rights, reading/viewing something in another way, and more. RMS's ethics-backed rationale against DRM and nonfree software (as opposed to a developmental methodology that accepts practical convenience at the cost of our civil liberties) is simply invaluable. Snowden's revelations bring RMS's long-held objections to nonfree software into sharp focus all the more.
Digital Citizen
So funny. Just a few short years ago, Mozilla explicitly declined to support H.264 on Windows, even if there was a free native plugin, since it'll partition the Linux users.
And now they're deciding to support DRM, just to keep the market share?
Just out of curiosity, any of the people complaining here about Mozilla caring about market share, actually supported the Mozilla Foundation financially or by other means before screaming and shouting at them because they try to maintain theirselves "commercial" enough? They need to matter in order to obtain funding, unless we decide to pay for the product. Otherwise FF is open source, grab the sources and maintain a DRM free version of it, named IceWolf or whatever you like. Do any of you feel up to it!?
I wonder if anyone technically competent and influential has recently left the company...
Truly, we got an offer we couldn't decline.
Many successful FOSS projects are corporate sponsored or subsidized, so corporations are going to be able to provide direction.
The days of volunteers controlling things are long gone for many large and/or successful projects.
First, I am against DRM. I think it restricts fair use and innovation, is spyware, and defends obsolete business models.
But what Mozilla did was a good step. Almost every browser in the wild ships with a flash plugin. Flash is worse than any CDM.
I think EME improves current situation, when some websites don't rely on flash anymore.
Most DRM is a rootkit, and not a honest software which balances the content owner's and the users interests. The sandbox approach from Mozilla is very non-intrusive in comparison to other DRM systems, and other EME browsers. I never liked installing any DRM software on my computer, as I give it full access to my system, and I will never be abled to distinguish its behaviour from malware. But when the sandbox really is as restrictive to the blob as it should be, I will probably even use the DRM.
This step of Mozilla will make some content owners accept less intrusive DRM, which is good.
Firefox would suffer a large drop in market share if they refused to support features that a significant portion of their userbase would consider critical. Being known as "that browser that doesn't work with Netflix" isn't the road to success.
If you don't like DRM, that's fine. The average joe doesn't care, and he's going to drop a browser in a heartbeat if it's stopping him from watching House of Cards or whatever other content he wants.
Most people’s reaction to the Mozilla & DRM debacle makes me want to firmly and repeatedly smash my head against my desk. I’ll outline why:
1. People who can’t (be bothered to) read
Most of the criticism comes from people who haven’t been bothered to go and read what Mozilla’s written about the issue (or just suck at it). If these people had, we’d have no complaints of Mozilla forcing users to use DRM, bundling propitiatory code, or ‘giving up’ on user’s freedom and rights.
Essentially all that is happening is Adobe’s CDM is going to be implemented as an optional, monitored, special-type-of-plugin.
I’d say it’s no different from Flash, but it is going to be different. It’s going to be more secure, and presumably less buggy (being a ‘feature’ of Firefox). Once Firefox implements EME, there’s really no reason for Flash or Silverlight to continue to exist. Sure, this setup sucks. But I think Flash sucks more.
As for ‘giving up’: Mozilla can only be influential if it has influence. The primary source of Mozilla’s influence is the number of people using Firefox, which isn’t currently very big. Not implementing EME won’t help that. As others have said, this is not the hill to die on.
This all leads nicely onto my second point:
2. People who use Chrome
One of the best Tweets I found on the issue was somebody threatening to switch to Google Chrome because of this. I think the irony here is clear.
Yet, what astounds me more is not people threatening to switch, but people already using Chrome who want Mozilla to protect their rights.
Google is a for-profit company which exists to exploit users data. It’s collaborated with the NSA. It’s helped to lead the charge with Microsoft and Netflix for EME. Why on Earth, then, would you give Google support by using Chrome?
This may seem hypocritical from someone who uses Google’s services. Yet Google Search, Maps, Android (and so-on) are unparalleled. Chrome isn’t.
The single easiest thing you can do to support Mozilla is to use Firefox. It gives Mozilla the influence it needs to fight.
3. People who think Mozilla can single-handedly ‘change the industry’
I hate DRM as much as the next guy and I think copyright is fundamentally broken - it’s why I’m a member of the Pirate Party, it’s why I donate to ORG and EFF, and it’s through these avenues I expect to see real change.
Mozilla can only change the industry with user support. And users don’t care about DRM, they only care that video works. We clearly saw this with WebM and H.264.
There’s work to be done, but it can’t be done if Mozilla loses its influence, and it can only be done with the support (not ire) of other organisations.
Users want DRM. We should give them DRM. That doesn’t mean Mozilla supports DRM, and it doesn’t mean Mozilla can’t educate users about what DRM means (and there are some very good signs of that being bundled into Webmaker soon).
In conclusion
Don’t be disappointed in Mozilla.
Be disappointed in Google, Microsoft and Apple for implementing this first, and backing Mozilla into a corner.
Be disappointed in Netflix and its friends (including, surprisingly, the BBC!) calling for DRM.
Be disappointed in your elected representatives creating an environment where it is potentially illegal to say specific things about DRM.
Now go out, educate users about what DRM means, and why it’s bad. Use Firefox, and donate time or money to Mozilla to give it the influence it needs. Support organisations (such as EFF, ORG, FSF, FSFE) and political parties who represent your views on DRM and Copyright reform.
This is by no means the end of the battle over DRM and Copyright - it’s just the beginning.
Your missing the point, and the problem. Nobody is saying users should be prohibited or prevented from installing digital restrictions software. What we're saying is Mozilla shouldn't be encouraging, or enabling it. Rather they should be discouraging users from using it. Words like “spyware” and “malware” should be used to describe these anti-user digital restrictions systems.
The user should not be forced to give up control, security, and privacy just to accommodate an industries interests in making greater profit. Largely this profit is made via deception, not via preventing piracy using digital restrictions. Pirates will continue to be able to pirate regardless of widespread us of digital restriction systems.
However what digital restrictions do is hand over more and more control to the companies that be of users systems and use of the legitimately purchased goods. As an example if I purchased software in 1990 I'd generally be able to install it on any system I owned. I didn't have to re-purchase the software when I bought a new computer. Nor did I have to tell the entity anything about myself.
Somehow, they discovered that their previous CEO, who had made it clear that he would absolutely refuse to put DRM in Firefox, had made an embarrassing political donation, and forced him out of the company.
The Free Software Foundation want's Mozilla to stop enabling companies from taking away control from the user. These companies have malicious intent and putting up pirating as it presents a reasonable explanation as to the "need" of these systems. Digital restrictions don't actually prevent pirates from pirating content. It's that simple.
If all the major browser vendors succumb to an easy to use digital restriction mechanism. We're all going to be negatively impacted even if the browser we use don't enable easy installation of digital restriction software. Sites with mere video clips like YouTube that nobody pirates will end up using digital restrictions. News sites which at one time had digital restriction free video clips will be encumbered an unavailable to digital restriction free users. Free software users already have this problem as do users of many consumer products which don't include Adobe Flash. Lets not make this problem any worse than it already is.
Current support is accomplished by interfacing to the OS, the cisco binaries are not out yet, but we can hope. And then Mozilla would still need to implement it and then it would take at least 12 weeks until it is tested and ships to the users.
So how should one be "on our side" while still providing a technical means for rental of non-free videos on demand? Or has FSF declared that not only all software but also all cultural works must be free?
Most do not understand about DRM, and that is what Mozilla is acting upon--complacency. Sure, you have a handful who understand the dangers of DRM, and why it is important to have a free internet and free open software but not enough. That is why Mozilla caves in, not enough users hold them accountable. Most of their funding comes from Google anyway. More need to be educated about this. When Stallman started the GNU operating system, their numbers were few. Now GNU is a bigger force. It may be time for another browser that respects the users' freedom. To Mozilla, I say, Fork You!
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
I wonder if anyone technically competent and influential has recently left the company...
You are not the first person to suspect that. From the link:
Consider these three blog posts from three Mozilla figures, including Eich: [snip] Eich stood firmly in the way of Mozilla incorporating DRM into Firefox. Now that he's gone, and his technological authority with him, Mozilla immediately caved to Hollywood interests.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Flash is no longer required to play video on many websites. Most youtube videos currently play in the html5 player. This is just a step backwards.
Flash is a well understood protocol and there are plenty of tools out there to strip the security from flash video streams. I'm inclined to think it's better the evil we know than some html DRM that we don't.
It's not just flash, it's also silverlight and googles DRM infected videolan plugin that this avoid...
Things like flash have giant codebases and can spy on users, Andreas, CTO at Mozilla did promise in his blog post that he would ensure privacy of users and so that adobes DRM thingy can't spy unhindered.
IMO this is the lesser evil.
Either way, the majority just want to watch netflix, they don't care. And this will provide a less buggy experience than flash or silverlight.
Personally, I think that when the revenue stream from online distribution becomes the primary source of income for the movie industry, then DRM will go away. Because DRM will always provide an inferior experience, more bugs, less stability and it is more expensive to stream... Than some static stream which can be distributed using a simple CDN. I think we have to be patient, DRM will die on it's own.
Chrome has nearly 50% of the browser market share all it itself... if Mozilla had just decided to not support it, then all it would accomplish by not implementing it is delegating itself to a future "unsupported browser" list... we'd be back to the good old days (sarcasm intended) when IE had a dominant market share and half of the websites out there wouldn't support anything else, except this time it'd be chrome and not IE that you'd have to have.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The Pale Moon version of Firefox appears to have better management than Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.
.01 cent? It's easy money, pai
Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version
Here are some of the advantages:
1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.
2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search. A small UI detail like that is not, in itself, as important as the fact that Mozilla Foundation could make such a careless mistake.
3) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
4) Pale Moon management is independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.
Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.
More information about Pale Moon: See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:
"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser -- having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."
Pale Moon migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.
Questions about Firefox:
The management of Firefox is apparently looking for ways to abuse users so that it can make more money. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans. Apparently Firefox management wanted to adopt that method of abuse and found that it wasn't possible. This story we are reading now: Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox discusses another example.
Have you seen $311,000,000 of yearly development of Firefox? Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.
See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."
Who gets the money? How it is spent? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe
I don't want to stop you from running free software, the FSF wants to stop me from non-free software. This is the fundamental difference. I don't impose my views on you, they want to impose their views on everyone. Their views are fundamentally extremist, mine are not.
Their ideas of a total ban on non-free software would infringe on my views. My way allows for you to run a free-software system while allowing me to run non-free software. They don't want to give me the option of running non-free software. They would rather i have nothing that use proprietary software
You are like the insane anti-abortionists who wants to ban the practice. I am the one who wants to make individuals to have a choice. I don't impose my views on you and would like you not to infringe on my right to do what i like. It's very simple.
"How long will it take to crack this DRM? 6 months at most. Probably more like 6 days. Why are we pretending like this is even remotely a big deal?"
The most important issue seems to be the overall direction Mozilla Foundation is going, not any one of these management issues alone:
Considering doing things against the interests of users. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans
Mimicking Google's rapid release of new versions of the Chrome browser with new major version numbers, causing add-ons to fail.
Mimicking the Google Chrome user interface.
Avoiding fixing a MAJOR flaw in Firefox. As I said above, the memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons.
Mis-handling of public relations.
"... the binary blob won't be included, and won't be downloaded without the user's consent."
Do you realize that every time anyone installs a new version of Firefox, the former configuration is over-written to include a maintenance service that gives Mozilla Foundation control over the user's computer? At present, that configuration can be changed back to avoid that control, but understanding how to re-configure Firefox to avoid constant outside control is not something most users understand.
To me, the direction Mozilla Foundation is going is scary. Maybe there is "user consent" now, but won't be later. Maybe "user consent" will be available only to technically-knowledgeable people.
They made like $300 million last year. There is no way that I, or even 1000 people like me, could give enough for them to listen to us. It makes far more sense to give to a smaller fork that is still on the correct path, and doesn't see Google money so smaller donations matter.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
As with most things, there always seems to be hidden agendas.
Why Brendan Eich had to Go
That's simply not true. The FSF:
Bullshit. I use Firefox since years, and it has been 64 bit for ages. Also, it rarely crashes (I think the last time it crashed for me was some time last year, but really, don't remember details). The main source fore restarts are the high-frequency updates.
I don't think a DRM should be opposed because then you can't pirate anymore.
Sure, everyone is a pirate. YT videos are free and everyone can watch them, why would I pirate them?
His point (hopefully) is that you don't need flash to play flash videos. Will EME videos play in VLC, MPlayer, FFmpeg?
That is exactly my point. I hate to use the build-in video player in FF (and the build-in Pdf viewer is horrible, too). Also I want the advantages of a computer: that I can save the video and watch again later. Why should I degrade my computer to a TV (streaming only)? I know that Netflix and Hollywood wants to kill the computer model, I don't need Mozilla to help them with that.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Futurepower should have clarified: there's no 64-bit Windows build of Firefox. You can make one yourself, if you've got the know-how and the tools, but it's quite unofficial.
As you point out, the code is perfectly 64-bit clean and runs fine in 64-bit mode on other platforms. There's no *good* reason that Windows users are still stuck with 32 bits.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...