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.
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.
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?
If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did."
So?
It's not their /job/ to do that. It's their job to make a F/OSS browser. It's in their fucking "Mozilla Manifesto"
DRM isn't Free. They have failed. And to somehow justify it by saying "someone else will do it anyway" is schoolyard "logic"/ rationalization.
--
BMO
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.
Why would they even bother? I think it far more likely that they would simply put in a "We're sorry, but your browser is not supported at [service] at this time. Please consider using Google Chrome, Microsoft's Internet Explorer or Apple Safari. Our apologies for the inconvenience."
Given the choice between e.g. watching the latest episode of a show, or.. well.. not, guess what most people are going to do, even if you have made the dangers of DRM clear to them.
The reason is apathy... those dangers have simply not yet materialized in any way that it has truly affected people. DRM server for an 8-year old game goes down? "Well I wasn't really playing it anymore anyway." Can't save/record Netflix content and after a while you find out that the show they used to have, they no longer have, and so you can't continue watching it? "Oh well, what else is on..."
The FSF can, and should, condemn Mozilla all they want for being pragmatic; the FSF cannot be thus. But Mozilla can, and should, lest FireFox becomes increasingly marginalized. Now if the FSF could convince Apple, Google, Microsoft to not include DRM schemes...
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.
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 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
The fact that a web browser that I use includes things that legitimize DRM is certainly not a win for me. The only possible "win" for me is when someone creates a Firefox-based web browser that doesn't include this garbage.
I have principles I am not willing to surrender. I can see that you may not have such things. Even the mere existence of DRM is a disgrace.
Except that RIGHT NOW, TODAY, Firefox supports a plug-in architecture which allows Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight to run and play DRM-encumbered content. Just like every other major browser we've been using for the last two decades. Now they want to make a better, safer, way to do it, and people are upset?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;