Slashdot Mirror
Did Mozilla Have No Choice But To Add DRM To Firefox?
JimLynch (684194) writes "Mozilla has been in the news quite a lot over the last few months. This time the organization is being hammered by open source advocates for adding Adobe DRM to Firefox. But did the folks at Mozilla really have a choice when it comes adding DRM? An open source project like Mozilla is not immune to market pressures. And with so many competing browsers such as Chrome adding DRM for Netflix, etc. how could Firefox avoid adding it? Is it realistic to think that Firefox can simply ignore such things? I don't think so and the reason why is in Firefox's usage numbers over the last few years."
I think that a better option coulbe be DO NOT DRIVE AWAY TECHNICALLY COMPETENT STAFF using ludicrous, infamous (and almost illegal) arguments.
But hey, it's just my two cents.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
DRM was already there with plugins which you can install or not install, enable or disable. So the boundary from plugin to built-in blurred a bit. So what, as long as you can enable or disable the DRM with an about:config or extension. Same thing, nothing changed.
I am dissappoint
If you run a Debian-based release you can switch to Iceweasel & Icedove V.24. You lose 'secure browsing' i.e. Google watching over your every move. Beyond that, I see only gain. I recommend it.
The other browser vendors have implemented EME, even IE, which is (caution, sarcasm ahead) well known for implementing the newest HTML5 technologies. Mozilla's only option was to rescue what could be rescued. Blame Google, MS and the MPAA instead, they have deserved the shitstorm.
Blocking something because RMS does not approve is the opposite of freedom
Nonsense. Choosing not to include some feature in your product is exercising your freedom, unless someone's actually forcing you to do it.
The question is not whether or not "simply ignore" a demand for DRM-encumbered media. The question is whether to deliberately choose not to be part of an industry screwing over its users. The choice not be part of an industry, obviously, means a loss in business.
That's the whole point of a boycott: making a statement that business is not a justification for everything, at least for some people.
What does the source being freely available have to do with this? How is that supposed to have any bearing on market pressures?
If they are a publicly traded, for profit company, they are absolutely subject to market pressures.
If they are simply for profit they are indirectly subject to market pressures.
If they are a non-profit entity, market pressures is a meaningless concept.
I am not exactly sure what what Mozilla is as Mozilla Foundation is non-profit, but Mozilla Corporation is for profit; And I am not sure which controls what or how that makes any sense (sounds like a sneaky way to avoid taxes and get cheap labour).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No, the prophecy has been fullfilled!
At the end of the day, it will be users who decide between Firefox, Chrome, IE, Safari, and the multitude of other options out there. These users will make their decision based upon a variety of factors. For some it will be access to DRMed content. For others it will be a completely open source product. Of course there are other reasons too.
I'm guessing that the Mozilla foundation tried to figure out what their user base wanted, and came up with the answer that content would keep more users than excluding the DRM module would. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. Only time will tell.
"DRM module" passes the de-encrypted content back to the open code for actual display to the user, it's all good.
That code will of course be able to be modified to save the de-encrypted content to disk instead of, or in addition to, displaying it.
I am also in a situation with no choice. Is it realistic to think that I can simply ignore that my tabs are on top? I don't think so.
PlanetVulkan.com
I'm not particularly worried about Firefox providing a socket to plug in some DRM module into, because I don't really see much difference between that and other binary plugins. As a Linux user, I'm more worried that anyone who does want to use it will have to rely on Adobe to provide and maintain that module, because their track record has been rather spotty.
Would I use it myself? I honestly haven't made up my mind yet. From what I understand it would be mostly for movies, and my current computer is a bit too loud for that to be an enjoyable experience...
If DRM is really impossible to implement in F/OSS software, without closed source or the threat of political force... Then what's the worry?
It seems like the worst-case scenario is media providers get a false sense of security and start providing content without silly plugins that actually ARE closed and non-accessible (under the threat of legal action).
Wonder what the public key field is for?
As I understand it, RMS has three points:
1) DRM is bad.
2) Firefox implementing DRM is one piece of the problem.
3) Firefox is free to do whatever they want, but if they felt forced to implement DRM, it would have been better if they at least made an effort to warn the users about the risks. Instead they are publicly praising Adobe for their approach to DRM.
People who criticize RMS often don't even know what he said. That is not true of everyone, but most comments on the net are rather clueless about it. DRM is bad, that's not even controversial.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It caved man! It's like over man! The whole fucking world has sold out and it sucks man!
unless someone's actually forcing you to do it.
"They forced me with money" is the reiterated excuse of some of the most despicable amoral scum.
Just because there's some pressure from the outside to do immoral things, doesn't mean they had to cave in. Evil previls because good keeps silent. Sorry Mozilla, but that was a REALLY bad decision.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Blocking something because RMS does not approve is the opposite of freedom, be it DRM, a binary driver, or whatever.
And denying people the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also "the opposite of freedom."
However, there's also the caveat that it's better for society to limit certain freedoms,
because otherwise they would otherwise impinge on all of us in a negative way.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Legal vs illegal is pretty cut and dried. An act is either illegal or it's legal. There's no "sort of" when it comes to an issue of legality.
I mean, it's a fine tip of the hat to the notion of "Rule of Law".
But the Affordable Care Act, inter alia, belies the notion. Law is now "that thing we emote about together with an eye toward polls".
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
DRM is only wanted by the studios, which themselves push that requirement onto Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.
That means that we're going to have a future version of the Web, fragmented by the studios, pushing whatever OS they prefer versus another (kiss Linux good-bye).
All that because some idiots somewhere keeps thinking we need to use a fucking Web browser to watch content instead of dedicated programs or set-top boxes.
1) DRM is bad.
Yep. So are taxes, and work for many people.
2) Firefox implementing DRM is one piece of the problem.
Nope. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there is lots of content that people want that is only legally available with DRM. If you want the content, the choice is support the DRM or steal it. There are merits to both paths.
3) Firefox is free to do whatever they want, but if they felt forced to implement DRM, it would have been better if they at least made an effort to warn the users about the risks. Instead they are publicly praising Adobe for their approach to DRM.
Oh, God no! We are already way too overwarned. Turing every movie into the panic over self signed certs is NOT the answer.
People who criticize RMS often don't even know what he said. That is not true of everyone, but most comments on the net are rather clueless about it. DRM is bad, that's not even controversial.
Stalman is a brilliant man who has done a lot for computing in general. (Not just open source) He is also an uncompromising ass that is very hard to work with. For those of us that live and work in the real world, this is not a path we can take. I prefer the ESR approach to picking battles that make a difference.
Mozilla are not just supporting DRM, you could already view DRM media, the significant development is their supporting for the addition of DRM to the web in a claimed standard, a damaging development for the open web. Mozilla had the choice of supporting the viewing of DRM media outside the web, by using a plugin or by using a separate media player. The DRM web interface they have decided to support, the EME, in not even capable of playing media on it's own, it is just part of a play and the rest is proprietary JS supplied by the content distributor. This is a strategy promoted by the distributors to advance their own selfish interests, by Netflix/Google/MS, it locks the user into using the distributors web based media player, is anti-competitive, and damages the health of the open web market. By supporting the EME Mozilla has made it almost impossible for the open web community to promote alternatives, damaging the open web community, in an act of betrayal.
Mozilla made no attempt to promote alternatives, have not explained the technical details of their EME/CDM design in enough detail for their claims of user security and privacy to be verified, and have refused to clarify that users can even view DRM media via Netflix in all its glory using their EME/CDM which was a key claimed reason for their decision, and have not been honest in the reasons for their decision (it's is not about supporting the viewing of DRM media because this is already possible).
RMS is right in this case, DRM just harms everyone. Now Linux might play some more videos, but everyone who wants to run Amiga or Haiku, or another platform will be shutout from accessing that content. This is why DRM is stupid, it keeps the vendor/platform lock in going. For no good reason. It has never stopped pirates from doing their thing.
What? How is yelling "fire" in a theater similar to publicly warning people about issues with DRM? That's one of the weirdest analogies I heard in a very long time.
Anyway, please explain how is DRM beneficial to the society, that it's worth limiting such freedoms as reporting bugs in the DRM technology.
Just because he is right does not mean that he isn't a paranoid lunatic. Denial is the only way to stay sane nowadays.
Where are my mod points when I need them?
Firefox usage #'s are down because that browser stopped being meaningfully independent like Chrome or Sea Monkey or Pale Moon are. The last time I used Firefox, I got pop-ups like a really good I.E. How 'bout they fix that problem instead of augment them?
Cranky educator.
Bending over and adding DRM might not exaclty be a good thing, but I can see how it might be necessary if they want to stay relevant. Though I have to say they really should have waited with that until DRM actually becomes relevant to the Web, jumping on the DRM train this early is really sending the wrong signal. Anyway what they should have done it also just ship the anti-DRM messures right in the browser as well. Add a function to screen capture videos of your browser interaction isn't all that difficult and would have nicely shown just how pontless the whole DRM thing is.
Have you heard about Adblock, good sir?
Let's not also forget two other particularly powerful points made in the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) essay:
Brad Kuhn builds on these points in his essay discussing Mozilla's announcement: "Theoretically speaking, though, the Mozilla Foundation is supposed to be a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity which told the IRS its charitable purpose was: to "keep the Internet a universal platform that is accessible by anyone from anywhere, using any computer, and ... develop open-source Internet applications". Baker fails to explain how switching Firefox to include proprietary software fits that mission. In fact, with a bit of revisionist history, she says that open source was merely an "approach" that Mozilla Foundation was using, not their mission."
Speaking of how people criticize the FSF without reading what they say, the FSF is not an "open source advocate" despite /.'s insistence to the contrary such as is stated in this story's headline. The FSF and the free software movement predate the developmental methodology known as open source, and the FSF fights for values the open source movement sets out to deny, namely software freedom. The FSF has published more than one essay on this topic (1, 2) and RMS includes a clear and cogent explanation of this point in virtually every talk you'll hear him give. Archives of these talks are readily available online in formats that favor free software. Mozilla's choice here is another example of reaching radically different conclusions given different philosophies: Mozilla's open source choice versus a free software activist's choice to reject DRM for many valid reasons the FSF points out.
Digital Citizen
Nope. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there is lots of content that people want that is only legally available with DRM. If you want the content, the choice is support the DRM or steal it. There are merits to both paths.
If you want the content, the choice is to tell the content providers that you will not take it with DRM attached to it.
For those of us that live and work in the real world, this is not a path we can take.
Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust. You accept incarceration, torture and murder of innocents under the banner "fight against terrorism" as collateral damage for your version of "real world".
And you are proud of it. You look down on people who let their conscience guide their acts and who actually make sacrifices for their values and beliefs. People living in "the real world" don't go protesting on the street. They stick their head out for nobody.
If you want the content, the choice is support the DRM or steal it.
Why steal it when you could just ask someone to voluntarily send you some data? Have to do things the hard way, do you?
And another option is to just ignore the content completely.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Of course they had a choice. That is not even a serious question.
They are losing market share and their actions will accelerate, not reverse, that trend, just as previous missteps have done. And yes, life will go on, but a great opportunity has been lost. Firefox still has enough users that this matters, and they are throwing their weight behind DRM, and against the open web they claim to stand for at a critical moment. The notion this will get anyone to switch (back) to Firefox is ludicrous. The ones that left because they wanted something more like the other browsers are happy with their other browser, and the rest of us see this is a stab in the back not a feature.
RIP Firefox Long Live PaleMoon.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
1) DRM is bad.
Yep. So are taxes, and work for many people.
No, Taxes and work are something you don't like, but are nessecary. Taxes pay for things like your clean drinking water, roads, street signs and lighting, all the things we actually like government for. Work allows you to purchase food, a place to sleep, clothes, a budget for entertainment.
DRM has no actual upside. There is no "Weeelll but roads are kinda nice" counter point. DRM is bad. Period. It doesn't work at it stated purpose, costs the people who implement it more money to use it, and those of up willing to bypass it do so trivially while those that are not willing suffer under new restrictions while actually being paying customers.
The only thing DRM is good for is keeping DRM manufacturers in business. It literally serves no useful purpose.
I'm concerned that really, between having UEFI Boot forced on us, and now EME with FireFox, even Linux is losing the war against DRM and as such losing the war on Fair use computing rights entirely. I disgree that the Internet is becoming Cable 2.0, but, the issue is that really, this has escalated beyond a technology issue and into a law and society one. I don't see any real solution to this beyond massive changes at the governmental level. Like:
1. Repeal of the DMCA.
2. Copyright roolled back to 14 years as it was at first
3. No Software patents
4. Internet Providers declared common carrier utilities.
But it has nothing to do with their business. Firefox has already been forked multiple times, mostly by people that can't put up with their garbage anymore. Firefox was supposed to have an advantage, coming from Netscape, they should have learned what happens to a company that "takes it to the next level".
Like supporting JPG files. Or supporting H264*. Oh, right, no. DRM isn't an "option" or a "feature". Supporting DRM is really legally supporting a system of intentional encumbering of an otherwise useful tool by distributors of which the illegal option of circumventing that encumbrance is wholly up to the distributor to decide upon. And note I say distributor for a reason because it's been repeatedly shown that DRM has been slapped onto public domain works and because the same DRM scheme is used elsewhere on copyrighted works it's still just as illegal to break the DRM for the public domain works. Really, DRM is basically an anti-patent system**.
Sure, if it were merely because RMS does not approve. But if it's because RMS spells out an argument on why DRM, a binary driver, or whatever grants less freedom to users and developers and in you agreeing you decide to not be a part of the problem, it's very much an expression of freedom. Or do you think people blindly follow RMS under some tyranny where RMS hasn't spelled out his opinions and for which "RMS supporters" always agree or fully go along with what he suggests? No, that's not at all what it's like.
Perhaps so. If you see slavery as acceptable, that is a problem. Not that I think you do, but all you are stating is a tautology. It speaks nothing about the specific point about DRM or Firefox.
*This is at least a reasonable point of contention. Where RMS wants free software, there are times when there's sufficient creative input into something that it's hard not to see why a group might want to patent what they do and recoup the costs through a licensing scheme that would inherently would be incompatible with free software--there's too much of a free rider problem and patents cover the overlying technology and not the underlying optimizations so the patent holder may never have the "best" implementation nor be in any better situation to recoup costs through support. This same problem can happen with games where art assets are a significant cost of creation. But at least H264 is an actual useful technology.
**Patents prevent, without proper licensing, a specific technology--ie, alternative circumventions are strictly legal. DRM prevents, period, anything but a specific technology--ie, alternative circumventions are strictly illegal. Of course mix DRM with patents and you've got a great legal lock out. Of course, given that DRM is both a lock and a key, the only reason to circumvent a technology is for interoperability with an established format, protocol, etc. Ie, it's an entirely artificially constructed barrier of entry. That's a pretty big cock up unless that was intentional. My guess is it was intentional
I'm intrigued as to how Chrome is independent?
Did he criticise Chrome when it put DRM in?
No.. then he can stfu. Why is this news now Firefox is implementing the standard that everyone else supports?!
Exactly Mozilla could have added the EME but with extra features that save the content, thus demonstrating to the web community that it is open to innovation and not a space for land grabs, and not compatible with DRM. The contemporary web is open, without specialized DRM support, and free to innovation, and Mozilla's actions are compromising this, this is a very dark development. Mozilla's support for the EME is support for selfish corps making land grabs on what we can implement in our own web browsers and under the threat of persecution, and they have damaged the open web.
"there were times when I had to use IE occasionally, because dumb webdesigners made it work only with IE. But I was using FF or some other browser, because it was superior in every other aspect."
EXACTLY. Those are the moments when you knew FF was doing it right, that made you more, not less loyal to FF. But then some suit somewhere figured that this would cause you to switch to IE full time (instead of reminding you why you avoid it) and so they ordered the developers to make FF more like the other browsers.
Funny enough, the more they work on that, the fewer users they have left.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
1) DRM is bad.
Did you nerds think your cunning plan all the way through to make this statement?
It's a very democratic thing to say DRM is bad, because it treats information as a free resource, allowing the poor and the weak to gain information. This is why RMS wants information to be free.
But the opposite is actually better: information should NOT be free. There should be costs associated with gaining information.
You can obviously figure out the many reasons why there should be costs for information. But the BEST reason to keep information expensive is so that it maintains an imbalance among people.
Free information allows everyone to be equal. That actually is a TERRIBLE thing, because it treats everyone equally.
But the key thing in life, is that, NO ONE wants to be treated equally. Instead, EVERYONE wants to gain power over others. This is the basic law of life: to gain power over others. You do this in everything you do. You brush your teeth in the morning because you want to be better than the uglies that don't. You get a job because you want to be better than the homeless people that don't. And so on.
Evolution is why this happens. Animals, and you, find mates because you are able to project a gain of power over others.
It's amazing how people say they want equality in life, when they do everything they can to be unequal.
Socially clueless and inept nerds obviously haven't figured this out, as their low social status demonstrates, but the real world is filled with people gaining power over you. There is no such thing as a person that wants to reduce power.
Gaining power is the fundamental meaning of life, as evolution has shown. It is not the content of your character that matters in life. It is your power.
And treating information as a valuable resource, instead of a commodity, is a way to maintain power over others.
And that's something you, and everyone else in the world, wants.
This is why those in power, who control expensive content, want DRM.
I guess maybe in your next life, you will have more power, and you will know why DRM is a good thing. But right now, most people don't want to be treated the same as a homeless person.
Sorry, but Firefox adding DRM, in whatever manner they are, is still a shift in the browser industry going forward. There isn't a mainstream browser, that I see, committed to FOSS philosophies out there anymore. I just heard about Pale Moon, but let's face it folks. Firefox, Chrome and IE are mainstream. The others are side projects. Safari, well, doesn't exist on Linux does it. Even I.E. can be shoe-horned on Linux if needed.
Point is, moving forward, there is no longer a major browser that hasn't caved to big media, and DRM. That is, in itself, a continuation of a disturbing trend we're seeing across the Internet, and computing in general. If you don't think this isn't part of that, you haven't been paying attention.
I think this whole situation has been blown out of proportion. How will this code, that allows loading a 3rd party DRM plugin, be conceptually different than the bit of code that allows loading other closed source plugins (Flash, Silverlight, etc)?
finally proven wrong?
I'm not particularly worried about Firefox providing a socket to plug in some DRM module into, because I don't really see much difference between that and other binary plugins. As a Linux user, I'm more worried that anyone who does want to use it will have to rely on Adobe to provide and maintain that module, because their track record has been rather spotty.
The big win from following a standard for the DRM plug-in is that now it will be obvious what's a DRM plug-in, and what's not. Hate DRM? Write a browser extension that makes use of this standard!
Seriously, if you really want to make heads asplode: write a FF extension that detects a DRM stream, determines the title from context, and automatically torrents the same title instead. If you can't do it as a plug-in, make a fork, since it's a stunt anyhow. I'm perfectly happy with paying Netflix, myself, but I'd certainly cheer if someone wrote this just to show the folly of the entire DRM approach.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They are not legally allowed to do that as aren't allowed any Firefox forks, btw.
I have been using Firefox and Chrome in parallel for different purposes for quite some time. Most of the time, I just stick with Firefox because, beside its numerous extensions, I think I can put my trust on them. It is my first browser. At the same time, I keep Chrome for video and other Flash contents so that if I'm really interested in something which is only available in Flash or other formats which is not supported on Firefox, I'll simply fire up Chrome and copy-paste the URL.
Having that said, if Mozilla implements its DRM support in a way that I no longer feel secure using it, I'll have to reconsider my first choice of browser. And it is very likely to be anything but Firefox.
But Mozilla's scheme may be:
1. Implement DRM to make sure the users don't massively ditch Firefox.
2. Attract more users, get >90% market share
3. Ditch DRM
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
"Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust"
From a Jew: Fuck you, asshole.
1) DRM is bad.
Yep. So are taxes,
Uh, most people understand why taxes are a good thing. There are people who feel that we are being taxed too much, but there aren't many people who want to get rid of taxes. Some form of taxation is necessary for the operation of the government.
Oh, God no! We are already way too overwarned.
Most people don't know the risks of DRM, a lot of people don't even know what DRM is. YOU might have been overwarned, but most people have never heard of The Right to Read, and don't understand why DRM could be problematic. As long as it doesn't get in the way, they are fine with it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"DRM should be illegal" -- Richard Stallman
Wow, you should read that post again, because you completely misunderstood it. He's saying DRM is not beneficial to society, but you seem to have understood the opposite.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
the notion that the Mozilla foundation "didn't have a choice" about DRM is an absolute joke
DRM is dead, in practice...all that DRM does is make users frustrated...it does *not* protect from illegal copying/distribution whatsoever
DRM is alive and well, in dumbass business porfolios, under the section of "risk management"
can Adobe or any organization *prevent* the Mozilla Foundation from releasing a non-DRM browser? NO!
no one is forcing Mozilla/Firefox to make this choice, except their own unscrupulous non-tech business people
Thank you Dave Raggett
If you want the content, the choice is to tell the content providers that you will not take it with DRM attached to it.
Which will most likely be met with "fuck off, how else do you expect to lock content down by region so we can charge more in countries where people can afford more?"
Oh FFS, this stupid example again? Did you know that there's no prohibition against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, WHEN THERE'S A FIRE IN THE THEATER!
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-brendan-eich-had-to-go.html
You can live perfectly fine without digital content. Not watching the latest movie isn't going to make you sick, like drinking polluted water is.
Watching videos on the internet is completely optional and is in no way comparable to public services.
If someone believes they benefit from using DRM, let them. You don't need their content, they would like your money though.
As soon as they realise they'll make more money without it, they'll stop using it.
If they actually do make more money with it, who are you to stop them?
What on earth are you trying to say? That DRM is not bad, because there are some people who like it?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you want to verify their claims of security, download the source code and have a look for yourself.
Amen. I'm not a Jew but I completely agree.
Anyone who equates someone who accepts DRM with someone who accepts the systematic slaughter of an entire people by the state needs to have their sense of proportion adjusted.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Seriously, FF has moved so far away from itself and toward Chrome that there's no point in having FF. If you want a browser that's like Chrome, get Chrome.
Compounding this is their surrender to the hypocritical bullies such as the heads of okcupid, who have a more anti-homosexual track record than the man they got fired.
I have only one thing that I use FF for now, and that's to download the NPAPI flash plugin. I'm about to start doing that from my pre-webkit version of Opera instead.
This is the open web, it has always been open and free of DRM. If you come to this community you need to accept the contemporary design of the web. Mozilla are helping to kick in the wall in my house. Get out of my face Mozilla.
You really are an imbecile.
The best part of all these Nazi references is that they reveal people who are ignorant of what an analogy is.
Hint: It's not the same as saying "These things are exactly alike."
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I have ask, bug Mozilla claim that the source code for the sandbox has not been written. Mozilla have not detailed the planned design in enough detail to verify their claims.
We need an "insightful troll" mod. +0.5, perhaps.
Clearly trolling, but you have perfectly expressed "the enemy's" stance on DRM. "We" need DRM because some people want to preserve their positions of power over the information-have-nots, simple as that.
And I don't even mean music and movies, we can live without those. I mean textbooks; I mean research journal access; I mean "for profit" municipal codes of law; I mean for-profit industry standards specs; I mean proprietary and impenetrable pricing structures like health insurance fees.
So although you troll us, you magnificent bastard, you also have one of the insightful posts on this topic so far.
I think I broke it.
But Mozilla's scheme may be:
1. Implement DRM to make sure the users don't massively ditch Firefox. 2. Attract more users, get >90% market share 3. Ditch DRM
Not for from it... From what I hear the idea is that when the content industry makes the majority of it's revenue from online streaming, they'll likely reconsider DRM. Most likely it'll go away on it's own, because it's complicated and expensive to implement on the server side. And it provides a buggy user experience.
I suspect that eventually netflix will be ones with the power to kill DRM. Imagine how much cheaper their distribution would be, if they didn't have to encrypt every stream individually.
In the mission to break DRM systems, it seems much easier to reverse engineer a tiny decryptor module rather than some massive plugin like Flash. Hopefully some enterprising free software advocates living in sane juresdictions will do us all a favour and sus it all out.
And fuck you for this DRM mess that will only destroy your creation.
Part of DRM is that it stops consumers from fulfilling their role in the "supply and demand" marketplace.
Content providers sell content for different prices in different regions. DRM prevents you from buying content at market prices.
Content is sold internationally, consumers should be able to buy content internationally or the market is artificially distorted by the sellers.
Tell me about it. People rose up against the Nazi's relatively quickly compared to DRM and Americans didn't have to fight on their own turf. The truth is Orwell wasn't very imaginative. Not compared to say, Nancy-Fucking-Pelosi
If gaining power is the meaning of life, then we should be actively working to bring down the government. And installing ourselves as the monopoly on violence.
> Yep. So are Excessive taxation without representation
FTFY.
Your analogy is also flawed.
DRM is NOT needed to stream video. In contradistinction government can't function without taxes for now (because are not yet spiritually mature enough to know how to self-govern yet)
If DRM is really impossible to implement in F/OSS software, without closed source or the threat of political force... Then what's the worry?
It seems like the worst-case scenario is media providers get a false sense of security and start providing content without silly plugins that actually ARE closed and non-accessible (under the threat of legal action).
The DRM is effectively forced.
I going to just flat out state that you've obviously never attempted to run the Netflix plugin from a ChromeOS machine (ChromeBook/ChromeBox) on another Linux platform, and discovered it won't run.
The modules in this case do navel-gazing and examine the container program to verify that the container program ins an unadulterated official build, such that you can't just compile up your own version of the browser, and expect the module to continue operating.
For Netflix on Linux desktops, this Navel-gazing took the form of utilizing the HAL, which was deprecated by its authors in 2008: http://www.freedesktop.org/wik... which was then used to generate a unique device identifier, which was used in the authorization and decryption process for the data, after having been watermarked with the same identifier at the source so that you could tell who exactly rented the content that was then stripped of DRM, and uploaded to a copy site.
This same (deprecated) module was required by Adobe FlashAccess beginning in February 2012, and was the reason for the sudden failure of rented content from both Amazon and YouTube, which both used FlashAccess as a means of DRM'ing "premium content" starting on that date.
So it's about as true to say that the DRM "isn't forced" as it's to say that the HTML "trusted proxy" mechanism would not be forced in order to allow you to make HTTPS connections, should it be standardized, thus giving a centralized ISP choke point, nominally for caching content, but practically, for introspecting HTTPS streams to make sure they are not transporting "unapproved content". If you can't access content without DRM, or you can't access HTTPS without authorizing the proxy at your ISP to listen in on the conversation, effectively instituting an automatic MITM attack for all your communications, it's kind of hard to credit participation in the scheme as "unforced" (Sure... you could choose not to have encrypted internet connectivity at all, instead of encrypted activity your ISP or anyone who got a single FISA order into your ISP could listen in on, but is that really a choice?).
I've been try really hard to stick with Firefox lately. It's not even the issue of adding DRM. Somehow without me realizing exactly when, Firefox has moved from cool trailblazer to bloated suckage over the last few years. I find myself gritting my teeth, giving up and going into Chromium more and more lately. Loyalty and history can only take you so far, maybe its time to research some of the forks...
It is NOT POSSIBLE to have an open source browser with DRM.
DRM is not about making users pay. Users already pay with no DRM, all the time. They could torrent, but they watch Netflix and Hulu. DRM is about two things: controlling people playback devices, and region locking stuff for price discrimination.
In order to make this DRM scheme work, it needs to have a cryptographically signed bootloader, kernel, graphics driver, and browser. That means you can't compile anything yourself, and neither can your distribution, unless they have signing keys, which they would need to kiss ass to get.
Flash sucks, but it doesn't destroy open source.
> And denying people the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also "the opposite of freedom."
For the last smegging time, the "fire-theater" issue is about property rights NOT free speech.
If there is NO fire, you are under an implicit social contract as to NOT create PANIC.
If there IS a fire, you are also under an implicit social contract to INFORM everyone of the DANGER.
The road to freedom must be balanced with the destination of moderation.
There is an old cliche:
"Be liberal with others, be conservative with yourself"
Most likely it'll go away on it's own, because it's complicated and expensive to implement on the server side. And it provides a buggy user experience.
That is some serious wishful thinking. DRM means that EVERYBODY will have to suffer the same buggy user experience. There won't be any significant competition that people can vote for with their dollars. Look at all the crap people have to put up with DRM making HDMI connections brittle and yet DRM on HDMI just keeps getting worse (see HDCP 2.0).
The only reason DRM went away on music is because Apple did some economic jujitsu on the publishers making them choose between money or control, apple's complete domination of music DRM meant they could dictate terms to the industry as long as the industry required DRM. They learned from that mistake and will make sure that streaming DRM never ends up so completely under the control of a distributor. Adobe's great for this because Adobe does not distribute content, they are purely infrastructure.
I suspect that eventually netflix will be ones with the power to kill DRM. Imagine how much cheaper their distribution would be, if they didn't have to encrypt every stream individually.
(1) Why do you think they encrypt the streams individually instead of just once and store the encrypted files on their server just like bluray discs of the same movie all have identical encryption?
(2) Encryption is super cheap now that dedicated hardware is built into modern CPUs - a typical Xeon processor can do 700MB/s with AES-NI on just one core. Intel makes Xeons with 15 cores per chip nowadays.
Someone sent a carefully crafted package of legal speak to Mozilla, forcing them to embed secret code from the dark side.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
Nope. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there is lots of content that people want that is only legally available with DRM.
That's exactly right! But the anti-DRM crew seem intent on attacking the symptom rather than the root cause - and have been fighting that losing battle for years. It's time to wake up and realise that if you convince the content producers to stop their use of DRM or get users to avoid content that uses DRM then DRM will disappear. Blocking DRM in Firefox will just cause content producers and users to support a different browser.
Dude, I see you got modded down to -1 for that awesome bit of satire.
Come over to soylentnews where you will be appreciated because we aren't quite so stupid as that.
So Mozilla is taking its open source code down an unpopular path. Doesn't this just create a great opportunity for some enterprising developers to make a new fork for Firefox? Someone can announce a new, "Browser X". Tagline: "It's the same as Firefox, but without that DRM garbage."
We at Mozilla do not regard popularity as an end in itself. Instead, we regard it as an essential part of our strategy for executing on our mission. The amount of influence we have to make the Internet better is, in many spheres, proportional to Firefox market share.
As to whether we'd lose users due to Netflix, Hulu etc eventually not working in Firefox ... nobody seriously doubts this.
Brad Kuhn misquotes Mitchell. She did not say "an approach", she said "MozillaÃ(TM)s fundamental approach".
Point is, moving forward, there is no longer a major browser that hasn't caved to big media, and DRM.
What's the benefit? Less users due to less choice. You have the option to use it or not which is *your choice* and it is open source so you can remove it if you really want to which is again *your choice*. Dont go trying to impose your ideology on me just because you dont like *my choice*, that is none of your business. You may preach your religious views but you may *not* forcefully impose them no matter how righteous you think you are.
This change provides maximum choice to all users, you only oppose it because it provides options to those who do not live by your ideology.
is what is denied people. This is not the opposite of freedom. Nor is it limiting freedom. It's a straw man argument.
Freedom in society (practical terms) has always consisted of two parts: the liberty to act, and the assumption of *responsibility* for the consequences. There is no reasonable scenario in which yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire does not instantly create a hazardous situation as a direct and forseeable consequence with no up side. Hence, for the liberty you took, you also took on the liability for the harm or potential harm caused. You were just as free *not* to incur that liability by *not* taking that action.
Now, yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there *is* a fire and you may be exhonerated of any wrongdoing, and possibly even hailed a hero, because people fleeing out of the theater and hurting one another in the process is an inevitable outcome regardless of if you yelled "fire" or someone simply noticed the fire and others noticed, too. In this case, you may actually be *preventing* harm to some degree by warning people before they succumb to smoke or get trapped by falling debrise.
Likewise, freedom in a vaccuum (nobody else suffers any consequence for your actions, like if you are on a deserted island) still consists of the same two parts: you have the liberty to act, but you are the only one who reaps or suffers the consequences of your actions. In this case, there is no crowded theater, nor potential harm to others, nor hazard in yelling to an empty room. However, if you do something equally as stupid, like *start* a fire in a building you are standing in, and you end up getting hurt, you are the one accountable to yourself.
Now, the opposite of freedom would be *forcing* you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or gagging you so that you *could not* choose to yell. Either removes your *choice* to take an action and to accept the consequences.
That is the difference between free and not free: the freedom to choose is freedom itself.
As for the DRM thing: if it is a plugin, it is your choice to install it or not install it.
If you do install it, you accept having DRM, but may also see it as a benefit in allowing you to access certain content.
If you do not install it, then you accept the consequence of not being able to access certain content.
The opposite of freedom in this instance would be to remove your choice to accept the consequences of one or another route.
Mozilla making it possible to choose to accept the DRM and access the content it requires *does* live up to its mission to make the Internet accessible by anyone from anywhere. They are not imposing *their* philosophy on you, the end user, in order to further their own interests. Thus, they are *facilitating* freedom, not hindering it.
In fact, they are trying to make sure, as much as possible, using a sandbox approach, that the DRM itself *also* does not hinder your freedom by taking away your choice regarding the privacy of your data, undermining the security of your system, subverting your control over your computer, etc. They are trying to ensure that, if you do install the DRM, you do not suffer consequences you did not know about or would have been willing to accept had you known about them, like the DRM calling home, rooting your computer, or other mischief.
You may not like the idea of DRM. I don't like it, either. I find it ineffective for its stated purpose, a nuisance, and more likely a tool meant to prop up a predatory business model. But, you should give credit where credit is due. Were the plugin something open source that made you money just for having the browser open and Mozilla decided to *prevent* you from installing it instead of giving you the choice, you'd be hopping mad.
Utterly correct, especially as long as there are alternatives.
If DRM is so precious to you, go use IE.
No, but taking away your user's right to DRMed content is not protecting their freedom. And that's what WILL happen as Flash becomes obsoleted. Suddenly Firefox will be the only browser that can't play DRMed content, robbing its users of that choice.
For the last smegging time, the "fire-theater" issue *is* about free speech rights, as your freedom of speech is being limited. How other people act in response to your speech is *on them*, and no one else. Saying it's about property rights doesn't mean it's not about free speech; it is.
Where private property comes in is the fact that the theater owner can kick you out if he/she so pleases. Government thugs shouldn't be involved in the business of punishing people because they screamed in a theater. Although, of the panicking people broke anything, they may need to pay up.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I'm a socialist. And by that I mean that I'm strongly against both capitalism and communism. I believe everyone should profit from his work and only from his own work. I believe it should be illegal to profit from someone else's work. So you can guess I'm also totally against social democracy and taxation.
That's......an unusual viewpoint for a socialist.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You can live perfectly fine without digital content. Not watching the latest movie isn't going to make you sick, like drinking polluted water is.
Watching videos on the internet is completely optional and is in no way comparable to public services.
If someone believes they benefit from using DRM, let them. You don't need their content, they would like your money though.
As soon as they realise they'll make more money without it, they'll stop using it.
If they actually do make more money with it, who are you to stop them?
I think you missed the point. Its not I'm saying DRM is bad for the end user (Which it is), or that its easily circumvented (which is it). Or that hurts the 'honest' user more than a pirate (which it does). or even that it puts a hard shelf life on a product that shouldn't have had one as soon as DRM support goes away. (which it does)
The point is that even ignoring any of the other very valid concerns, it literally doesn't do what it's supposed to.
The company who uses DRM with a goal in mind is not getting that goal from DRM.
When a company chooses to include DRM in their product, and they spend money on that DRM. They are literally not getting what they paid for.
Activition or the NFL, or Netflix, whoever chooses to implement DRM is literally not getting anything for the money spent on it. the entire DRM industry is a leech on content providers. The internet is not new anymore, we have data on these kinds of things and we know that DRM in it self, does not function.
Not, its bad for people, or a bad idea, or inconvenient, or not cost effective. It literally fails at its purpose. DRM does not do what DRM claims to do.
DRM has never worked for a company the way they want, or were promised it would. It has however spectacularly failed on multiple occasions. So its a bad product that doesn't function as advertised, and has the potential to fail spectacularly enough to cost you money when it fails.
No company has ever had a product 'protected' by the inclusion of DRM. Everything and anything popular enough for somebody to care about has had its DRM stripped out. In some cases in a matter of hours. In a a few cases Pirates had copies before official release dates. Its like putting 1234 as the combination on your luggage. In the most literally sense you have technically secured your luggage. But about 60 seconds in the real world is enough to show there are flaws in your plan.
(and the air shield).
This is inane. Not yelling "fire" isn't the same thing. Plus Mozilla has been yelling "fire" in this case for a long time, and nobody has listened to them or helped them. The FSF and Doctorow just wants to pour scorn and blame on Mozilla so their own failed anti-DRM efforts won't look as bad. It's that simple.
Besides that, nobody gives a flying toss about Mozilla. They just use them as their personal blunt instrument in their wars. If they die off, no big loss. Far easier to demand perfection from Mozilla than to actually do something yourself. Scapegoats all the way down, as it were.
Nonsense. All they needed was an HTML5 tag identifying DRM content that starts and external player that the user can decide to use or not use.
By using Firefox, you are tacitly supporting DRM, even if you never view and DRM'd content, because they have cooked the technology into the cake. It didn't have to be that way. They could have kept Firefox open and still allow the movie industry to peddle their poison.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Which is why all the music I buy these days is so heavily encumbered with DRM. Despite the shrill protests of the public, the only way to get the content was to accept DRM on my music files.
Oh wait, no, I don't.
It is not a losing battle to fight against DRM. Between the easy accessibility of non-DRM - albeit copyright-infringing - music and a company (Apple) with a large enough market-share to say, "You know what, screw DRM!", nowadays I can download all my songs in unencumbered MP3s. And - despite all their fears to the contrary - the music industry hasn't gone bankrupt because of this. Given an equitable price, combined with the convenience and legitimacy of an above-board purchase, music sales continue to be profitable.
Firefox had an opportunity to be an Apple here; they could have helped redirect the market into a new direction. Instead they caved into prophetic bullshit about declining marketshare and now all its users suffer for their shortsightedness. Mozilla could have said to big media, "this is a shit idea" and rather than sacrifice that huge potential audience the media conglomerates would have found a more favorable alternative.
Panicking people injure and kill. That is why it's the government business - I don't give a fuck if they pay me back after killing me. So let's try to make sure it doesn't happen at all.
But did the folks at Mozilla really have a choice when it comes adding DRM?
Of course they had. It's not like someone put a mind control spell on them.
That, exactly, is the point that the FSF is making and that some people complaining about the move make: That Free Software should differ from commercial software precisely because it can afford to make unpopular choices. It can do the right thing. And sometimes the right thing isn't the easy thing.
But that is the other side of freedom. Anyone can fight for freedom when the fight is easy. Think what you want about RMS and the FSF and their likes, but one thing you cannot accuse them of is taking the easy way out. They've always stuck to their principles, even when it wasn't easy.
And in the end, more often than not, it turned out they were right.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
No one is forcing you to use the DRM in Firefox. They are simply allowing it as an option.
The government doesn't take away your privacy by running the NSA. They are simply adding surveilance as an option.
The mafia doesn't force you to pay protection money. They are simply allowing you to continue running your business.
That mugger doesn't force you to hand over your wallet. He is simply offering you to give him your money, you know, as an option...
It's all whitewashing. DRM is evil and there is no good side to it. Allowing it allows it to spread and grow. If you want to know why RMS disapproves, read The Right To Read.
At least the man has a spine. Something we can't say about the Mozilla Foundation anymore, unfortunately.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As soon as they realise they'll make more money without it, they'll stop using it.
Nice idea, but you could be waiting a very long time.The only two times I'm aware of this happening is in music downloads and old video games (e.g. GOG.com). Why these two markets? Because a song or an ancient game past its prime is a "cheap" asset that there's little for the content provider to lose on. Nothing has happened yet in the higher dollar-purchase value markets of movies, TV, e-books, AAA video games or AAA productivity software titles to convince the content creators that DRM isn't making them more money than if they got rid of it.
Not to say it might not happen someday, but for now content providers appear to have done the math on their more valuable assets (i.e. anything that isn't a $0.99 song or a five-dollar retro videogame) and decided DRM isn't hurting them, it's helping. So don't hold your breath.
"95% of all Slashdot
Panicking people injure and kill? Indeed they do. You're absolutely right about that.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
For the last smegging time, the "fire-theater" issue *is* about free speech rights, as your freedom of speech is being limited.
Stop being so desperate to defend the right to be an asshole. Obviously if anybody is allowed to incite panic by sounding a fire alarm whenever they want then eventually people are not going to take such a thing seriously.
Now ideally we live in a world where people are not just assholes for the sake of it however that idealized world is not reality but if you can get us to the point where that is the case then the whole "fire-theater" issue goes away by itself, you are again fighting the symptom rather than the cause just like with DRM.
Once again, using an analogy is not the same thing as saying two things are exactly alike. It could be that they share just one similarity. If you're going to call me ignorant, first make sure it's not you who is ignorant.
Look for the actual reason the person made the analogy to begin with, and if it doesn't hold up, attack the analogy with a logical rebuttal *for that reason*. Attacking it because the two situations are not exactly the same is just a straw man. Pointing out where the situations differ is equally pointless, unless you're pointing out that the similarities aren't so similar after all.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Stop being so desperate to defend the right to be an asshole.
People have always had that right in most cases. That's quite the draconian attitude you have.
Obviously if anybody is allowed to incite panic by sounding a fire alarm whenever they want then eventually people are not going to take such a thing seriously.
Then that's their fault. And I care far more about free speech than safety.
Now ideally we live in a world where people are not just assholes for the sake of it however that idealized world is not reality but if you can get us to the point where that is the case then the whole "fire-theater" issue goes away by itself
In practice, the idiot would just be laughed at and kicked out of the theater. I've never--not once--seen where this whole 'falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater' thing caused a panic.
If the theater owner doesn't like it, then kick the guy out. Asshole authoritarians don't understand this matter at all.
What's even more pathetic is that the court ruling this came from allowed war protestors to be convicted, and yet people feel it's a good idea to cite it as an example of what's right with the world. Good job, assholes.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Linux is supposedly even more free than Unix, as it's GPL throughout, but...
even Unix would choke at the idea concept of adding that level of DRM. There's no place for it in Firefox and if there is, we need a pure GPL replacement for Firefox. And no .. not NSA Chrome.. *laugh*.
Keep supporting open source people. There are already lots of alternatives to the biggies. Let's keep it going.
Is there a single word from Mozilla's current leadership that makes you think this could even theoretically be true? Because I've looked, and been unable to find even a hint that they intend to drop DRM at any point in the future.
We need them to succeed so that we get a decent programming language like Rust.
It is not a losing battle to fight against DRM.
These days there is more DRM encumbered media and streaming services than ever before!
Mozilla could have said to big media, "this is a shit idea" and rather than sacrifice that huge potential audience the media conglomerates would have found a more favorable alternative.
I like your optimism but I don't think Mozilla have that much clout. Perhaps it's time to fork Firefox? Though I'm pretty sure there are quite a lot of popular forks already that are unlikely to implement this DRM so maybe one of them should make an attempt to do what you say.
Hmmmmm, you're probably right. Not a native speaker here, and I parsed it differently the first time ...
But Mozilla's scheme may be:
1. Implement DRM to make sure the users don't massively ditch Firefox.
2. Attract more users, get >90% market share
3. Ditch DRM
4. End up with 0% market share.
yeah right - just like in communism the government is supposed to eventually fade away...
So I'm a bit confused all this. How close is the following chain of events?
1. Netflix/___ others start trying to wrap their "tasty content" into wrappers that (try to) require baked in DRM.
2. Uneducated Firefox users suddenly discover that their browser won't play that tasty content anymore "because Mozilla didn't add that Dr. Thingy stuff" to make it work.
3. Said uneducated Firefox users then jump ship to that dulcet siren's call such as Chrome because yay the tasty content works again! "Everything is Awesome!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
So what about PaleMoon? Scuttle has it a bunch of people are headed over that way not least because of FF29 UI Shenanigans. So why not DRM? Their entire point was to unbake bloaty parts of reg FF. So why not if they unbake the DRM from their copy?
And what does Opera have to say about all this? How about Chromium and/or Komodo Dragon? (Non-Googly clones of Chrome.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Call me when he attacks the actual troublemakers and their enablers. Putting the focus on Mozilla is mental. They're not the problem, they're a convenient scapegoat for a lost battle.
Unfortunately, it is easier for some people to let other people to think for them, instead of doing it themselves. Such as, some people have difficulty to see RMS' is not the only ethical analysis of the current political and technical situation of IT. At the most basic level; If there is a software utility exist in a platform I use,I can choose to use or not to use it, so I have the freedom. If such utility does not exist I cannot decide to use it so I do not have the freedom....
Not for a libertarian socialist. They've been a thing for roughly 100 years now.
It's called IceCat, but if I had to tell you that, it indicates how successful it was.
I bet Brendon Eich wouldn't have allowed this.
Then again, maybe that's why the media companies kicked off such a fuss to out him....
Mozilla is not taking privacy seriously, lately.
Cache clear on Firefox does not really seem clear the cache.
There is no way to clear the "Top Sites" in Firefox Mobile.
There is no built in way clear on exit in Mozilla Mobile.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
There's no way to add DRM to anything without compromising security.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
There is no market pressure pushing for DRM. There is only corporate and political pressure. There are no customers that want DRM. Mozilla's message should have been "We left out DRM because because we answer to our customers not to Adobe or MPAA or RIAA.
There are a few exceptions like national defense,
Well, that kind of ruins your point there. Learn to say what you mean instead of being hyperbolic all the time, it makes you look stupid.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There aren't too many of those around
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yep. I'm going to use the browser that displays content I paid to view.
I get that, but what if along the way of obtaining popularity, you lose the purpose of your mission?
Not saying that that's what you're doing, it's just that it's not so clear-cut to me what the right decision is in this case.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Firefox usage is dropping because the designers are trying to make it just like every other browser. Those that chose it because it is (was) different are now jumping ship. It should be no surprise the 'Classic Theme Restorer' is now one of the top 5 weekly downloads for extensions since FF 29 shipped.
So what about PaleMoon? Scuttle has it a bunch of people are headed over that way not least because of FF29 UI Shenanigans.
http://www.palemoon.org/ checked it out and it looks (sounds) good, I'll give that a try, didn't know there were so many different browsers out till this DRM thing.
I like what Palemoon has to offer, more so what it doesn't. No clue what this "FF29 UI Shenanigans" is all about
And what does Opera have to say about all this? How about Chromium and/or Komodo Dragon? (Non-Googly clones of Chrome.)
Opera's irrelevant now and shouldn't be considered an alternative, I'm still running Opera 12 but many sites are starting to complain. 20 (?) some years worth of bookmarks and this is the end of my building on it.
My biggest complaint while small is Opera always opened a new tab to the far right, everything else opens it next to the tab your in, old Opera had it right.
Chrome isn't an option, I have a problem when a program forces itself on me at every turn, and Opera is just a different interface for Chrome.
Leaving FireFox won't be hard at all, never really cared for it and always had to disable it's crash reporting. (something Palemoon has already done (whatever the reason)).
Thanks for the heads up.
Pale Moon is not independent, and neither is Seamonkey. They will both die off without Mozilla making Firefox, although if we're lucky it will take a few years. It's clear you're not particularly well-educated on this stuff, so I'd recommend checking whether your PC has any malware rather than instinctively blaming Firefox and pretending that issue is why Firefox's usage "#s" are down.
It's just decorative DRM; anyone who wants to can just loot the decrypted video at any point between the graphics card and your eyes. They can't lock down a picture and show it to you simultaneously, so this is just to prevent your average joe from copying the video onto their computer to watch later or whatever.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
If these giant corporations keep f#cking us, I for one will go back to playing my acoustic guitar and storytelling around a campfire talking about the days of yor, things to come and start getting up at sunrise again.
Don't some video chips already honor watermarking in the stream? Sure, it can be stripped out well enough to appear unwatermarked, but can it be obscured completely enough for a computer forensics professional to not find your name in lights?
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
You know, that identity-politics campaign to get rid of Brendan Eich is starting to take on a sinister note. Made in Hollywood, even.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Nobody said the analogy fails because they are not exactly the same but you keep thinking somebody does.
Perhaps not you, but S.O.B. above said this: "Anyone who equates someone who accepts DRM with someone who accepts the systematic slaughter of an entire people by the state needs to have their sense of proportion adjusted."
Then you must isolate that element and present it as analogous to the similarity in the situation being discussed. An analogy breaks down when you try to transfer the meaning of a cause-and-effect scenario from one context to another but can only retain the cause *or* the effect which is what has happened in this attempt.
An analogy breaks down when it's useless or irrelevant.
If I understand it, the point was that people accept all sorts of nonsense in their attempt to live in the "real world" and keep its convenience. Scared of the terrorist bogeyman? Let the government do as it pleases; you have mouths to feed, and it's much too cumbersome to do anything stop it. Something to that effect.
The key factor of *choice* has been lost in the analogy which is why it fails
If he said they were similar in that way, then you'd be right. But he didn't.
The problem with using such analogies isn't that they're always wrong, but that people will inevitably misinterpret you, making it a complete waste of time.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Why would users ditch firefox if they don't have this? You can already view DRM content in firefox, (netflix) using silverlight. The only reason firefox are doing this is money, being paid by adobe in a last ditch attempt to become relevant again, by taking over the browser platform.
Not sure if that would be a good example of "the follow of the entire DRM approach." At least no more so than the existence of adblock plugins has show the ad industry the error of its ways.
Taxes are a way of getting other to pay for services they do not use. Usage fees are ways to get users to pay for services they use. There are a few exceptions like national defense, but I think we can agree that we are WAY beyond that now.
Just because we are way beyond that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get back to that. I would love to see taxes only used
for "common good" programs like street lights and the military and everything else switched to usage fees.
The consequences of DRM are not at all similar to any part of the holocaust, therefore "collaborating" with DRM is not at all similar to collaborating with Nazis.
Even in fantasy analogy land, you cannot remove that critical element of the analogy. The holocaust wasn't just a matter of people accepting an abstract something as unchangeable.
but that people will inevitably misinterpret you,
Look at what he said:
Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust. You accept incarceration, torture and murder of innocents under the banner "fight against terrorism" as collateral damage for your version of "real world".
There's no misinterpretation here. He is literally saying that people who accept DRM in Firefox would allow the holocaust to happen and are also accepting the "fight against terrorism" line.
As someone who used to love Firefox, I claim the usage statistics have nothing to do with not supporting NetFlix. For the last few years, every new version has removed stuff I liked, added stuff I didn't care about, and created various problems. That might be a better explanation for declining share. No one wants DRM. It is death to the open web.
I remain extremely skeptical of the idea that DRM does literally nothing. It'l like saying door locks don't work because they can be kicked down or picked, or somebody can go through the window. Imperfect security *can* be better than no security, depending on the circumstance.
I'm not coming out pro-DRM, just...this argument doesn't make sense. I know for a fact my parents could never be bothered to learn how to use bittorrent. They just went and bought it instead when I moved out. Which implies that it does work to at least some degree. Not necessarily that the benefit exceeds the cost, but I don't think it's fundamentally honest to say that DRM has no benefit for anybody.
What has happened with Mozilla adding DRM is there is no longer any "moral" reason to use it. Just use Chrome instead. Chrome was spawned in the dark side and is way faster.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
RMS is so committed to free software that, given a fully functional, good system with some non-free parts, and an obtuse, barely-functional system, he'd rather everyone have the latter instead of the former.
This may be necessary given his position is to defend and advocate for an extreme that would otherwise not be as well represented. However, realistically this is simply not an option for most people; they might prefer to use free software, but they want software that they can actually use and is useful rather than software that is ideologically correct but incapable of doing what they want or need, or makes it prohibitively difficult or complicated.
no but it does mean these things are roughly similar
Hint: They arent
The consequences of DRM are not at all similar to any part of the holocaust, therefore "collaborating" with DRM is not at all similar to collaborating with Nazis.
But they might be similar in at least one way. That's all it takes.
Whether the analogy amounts to anything useful is an entirely different matter.
He is literally saying that people who accept DRM in Firefox would allow the holocaust to happen and are also accepting the "fight against terrorism" line.
Human language isn't always literal. My interpretation might not be off. But unless clarified further, it very well could be.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I don't care if browsers use DRM, I care about being forced to have it by default. If DRM is on my computer, its because I installed it not because some one else decided to.
write a FF extension that detects a DRM stream, determines the title from context, and automatically torrents the same title instead. If you can't do it as a plug-in, make a fork, since it's a stunt anyhow.
It is a stunt that will land you in jail.
A stunt that will end in the Firefox browser refusing to install or communicate with any unauthorized extensions.
He said "Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust", a comparison of DRM indifferents to those who stood by when the Holocaust happened.
Which, again, could very well be referring to people who are more concerned about convenience and the "real world" to do anything to stop injustice, or they could even actively promote it.
Or it might just be that that person is an idiot. At this point, and since it was an AC, there's no way to tell.
Clearly the result of the former having the *choice* of whether to participate or not renders the analogy ridiculous and invalid.
Not unless that was the entire point of the analogy.
Only if it is a poor analogy.
Nah, there are plenty of people who don't even know what an analogy is, or how human language works.
Now, maybe this analogy was poor, but that isn't my point.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Have you actually seen what is on Netflix? I used a free trial this month for a Bluray player I got about a year ago. There is nothing to watch on Netflix. Really. It is the lowest form of film/tv show programming. I scour the directory for ages to look for something to watch. For THIS we need DRM? Man, you're giving away a wealth of freedom for a flaming bag of dogshit? I figure, 'okay, maybe there are some ground breaking programs that are worth this sacrifice.' But there is nothing. NOTHING.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
It's time to wake up and realise that if you convince the content producers to stop their use of DRM or get users to avoid content that uses DRM then DRM will disappear
A good way to convince them to stop using it is ... to not support it in your browser. It doesn't matter if you are pro or anti-DRM, Mozilla simply has better things to do.
You are no different than "racism is bad, so we need affirmative action."
If you want to end racism, you end it period. You don't "wait until the other side ends it first, only then will I stop myself."
There is a word for you, and that word is "hypocrite."
There is not much leeway, you are either:
1) paid shill, spreading lies
2) fighting the good fight, but hopelessly confused, not willing to put forth any actual effort
3) a quitter
Blocking DRM in Firefox will just cause content producers and users to support a different browser.
I know you are lying, because Mozilla doesn't have to block DRM, they just don't have to help it spread.
With limited resources, limited people, limited money, and limited time, this is caving on Mozilla's part.
You only tell half the story. The other half, is that you are ramming DRM into a browser whose users do not want it.
Now, these users have to think long and hard if they still want to use and support Firefox, or if it is time to move elsewhere, because it is only going to get worse.
I'm using a browser without java plugin. Every time I hit a site that needs java plugin, I give it the finger and go somewhere else. I remember back in the Nutscrape 2.0 days what a great invention Java was, and I spent hours playing Go and Chess and Hearts on yahoo games back in 1999-2002, running as a java plugin. Don't need java no more, especially once it went into the bloatware oblivion. The first java plugin was like 1 or 2 MB. By 2000 the j2sdk was like 30 MB, and it just kept growing, what a mess!
I'm proud to say that I also never watched an actual DVD yet, except like 30 seconds of Black Superman(he had a cape and he was flying) when a friend of mine popped it into a laptop running Knoppix 3.6/Xine. And I do this abstaining because it contains DRM - region codes, encryption, etc. Had it not had any of that crap, I'd gladly watch DVD's, after all who likes the quality of VHS tapes?
I accidentally bought an ebook on google books thinking it'd be like pdf files I used to buy on EPE magazine back in 06, but instead the pdf came with DRM. Yucckk! The only thing that could read it was Adobe Digital Editions 2.0. What a joke that program is! Somebody held a gun at the skulls of the programmers at Adobe and told them they were either gonna program it in dotnet or die, because nobody in their right mind would ever program such a thing in dotnet, or java, instead of straight win32 api c. And it shows, the pdf file craaaawwwwls on this wonderful little HP Mini 210 netbook with a 5 Watt chipset/cpu and 7 hrs battery life on a 4 year old battery. And that's after downgrading to the faster XP, because the default Win 7 that it came with had some serious bloat/speed issues. They are trying to tell me this wonderful little thing from 2010 ain't fast enough to run modern software, please buy a new computer. Bullshit. It's miles faster than a P2 450, and those things used to be pretty usable back in 1999 to read text and watch videos. What the hell happened to text, like a pdf file or Slashdot or twitter that I have to run a friggin supercomputer just to read a line of text on twitter with a browser? It's bad programming practices, that's what happened. I can bring any supercomputer to its knees by feeding it a two line infinite loop. That's all what's wrong with the web today, semi-infinite loop javascript everywhere, telling you to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, dump your old software that you got used to. Anyway, a DRM removal tool makes the pdf file pretty readable on this netbook via Foxit Reader 2.3, and it's pretty damn unusable with Adobe Digital Editions 2.0. It's not the file, it's not the computer that's wrong, but the software that reads it is crap. It's crap because it's forced to use the bloatware dotnet. By the way had I known the file was gonna be DRM'd before I bought it, I would have never touched it with a 10 foot stick! I was seriously expecting an unDRM'd pdf. I might be just one customer, but I will fully abstain from any further DRM'd pdf purchases, and if that means going back to paper books only and no computer, I can imagine living a life without any computing. I'm only one customer, way off the chart, halfass vegetarian, etc. By the way I never intentionally bought any music from any DRM'd music sites, but I still buy Emusic, but will stop as soon as they start DRMing their shit. I'm the customer, and I CAN live without a computer, with just paper and pencil. I don't want to, but if push comes to shove, it's not that difficult. I'm a customer, just one, but I vote with my money, and unless the goverment forces me to purchase something, like they force me to purchase insurance and tomatoes regardless of the astronomical or potentially astronomical prices charged for it, I will choose myself how to spend or not to spend my money. Property is nice, everyday life is bogged down with gathering property, food, etc, but as the Buddhist monks teach you, all you need is a begging bowl for rice and a robe to live happily. As long as you got food on the table every day or every couple days, life is good. You don't have to use DRM if you don't want to, unless the government forces you to use it. Then it's like tea tax.
When you have kids to feed you can be forced with money, as you can't just commit suicide when you're out of options and whatever will be will be with them, I mean you can but you're not supposed to. You're responsible for your kids more than you're responsible for your siblings or parents and cousins, because you choose to create them and bring them into being. The limit of what you're willing to do, how immoral you're willing to stoop to to feed them then goes very very far.
Having a plugin interface that you know is being used by Flash is material cooperation with evil, which is not necessarily sinful, one must exercise prudential judgement.
Having an explicit interface for DRM is formal cooperation with evil, which is always sinful.
I'm stuck on Opera 12/XP, and I got really high speed internet these days to capture and save as much from the web as possible, as I'm bracing for impact with a time when I have to fully abstain from the internet, because my computer is no longer compatible with the new shit on there. And that's not such a big deal. I mean I might get some tv-like appliance with software that has 2 buttons and 2 menus instead of the millions of buttons and millions of menus in my present computing environment, and go on the internet with it to pay my gas bill, or read email, but the fun of the internet will be gone, especially if everything is DRM'd, and I can't save a jpg file depicting some nature scene for my wallpaper without paying 10 cents to the owner for it. They are telling me other people are gonna buy my pictures too. Haha. 10 cents add up very fast, I ain't got that kinda dough. I get emusic, 49 cents a song, and I run out of the monthly fee in like no time! And if you only knew how many people are putting songs on emusic, each thinking they are gonna hit it big, and they are LUCKY if they ever pay off their equipment/software used to generate that music, let alone make a profit. That's what a lot of music business makes money on, like the lottery does too - it gives people a dream of when they hit it big!
On XP I use the last nondotnet Zonealarm, and it's not perfect, but it does a pretty good job, Zonealarm itself is a backdoor, but at least it's a predictable one. It also stops programs from starting or interacting with each other. The only way I could get my hands on the latest nondotnet version was to buy a boxed copy off ebay, as they no longer will sell you a code for it to downgrade to old copies online, as I had to find out through a credit card refund from the company. Hey, I wanted them to make money, but they are fully committed to dotnet, and I'm fully committed not to use dotnet. I'm the customer, and I'm still a customer even if they are willing to dump me as one, because the shit they used to make used to be so good compared to the other firewalls/connection managers out there. And a hardware firewall is not that much better, it only protects from inbound threats, not stuff running on your computer, outbound threats, as Zonealarm the old version does. Sill, the Opera Browser, Zonealarm itself, etc, they are all outbound threats themselves.
Well, your parents did not get stopped by the DRM. They got stopped by lack of will/time/knowledge to to use bittorrent to access a DRM-free content. Just saying... I agree it does something, I for one avoid buying all disney movies as I cannot make backups for my kids who would trash a dvd in few days.
4wdloop
Apple had a near-monopoly on digital music sales. They had the clout to force the music industry to accept their terms. In fact, that clout was what got the music industry to give DRM-free music to Amazon. iTunes was so big, Apple was calling the shots and making demands - the music industry has long hated 99 cent songs (they wanted variable pricing) and Apple's grip on keeping things that way. And the music industry couldn't simply withdraw their music - the alternative to iTunes and its money was... piracy.
When Apple saw what Amazon was given, they made the same demands (in exchange for variable pricing - 79/99/129 cents). Hence Steve Jobs' essay on DRM and music.
But Apple had the music industry in its palm. And when Amazon was given DRM-free rights, Apple had the leverage they need to demand the same. In fact, the fact that iTunes music was locked to iPod made it all the sweeter - because it meant no OTHER music store could succeed, so the music industry was forced to allow DRM-free music so another music store could get their music loaded on the #1 player - the iPod,
It was a close call - because I suspect the music industry was hoping the DoJ would declare Apple a monopoly and thus be forced to open other DRM systems onto the iPod. Instead, they caved first.
The movie industry saw what happened to the music industry, which is why they're spreading their content around. Netflix is for DVD releases, a month later. Hulu gets up to date TV. Amazon, iTunes, etc., well, they get to rent and sell new releases. No one company will "have it all" so they won't be big enough to start making demands like Apple did. When you can get your TV from Amazon, iTunes or Hulu (with the first two offering it for sale, the latter for free streaming), movies from Amazon, Google Play and iTunes, then later on Netflix...
And Mozilla could be the also-ran, where the mainstream browsers are now just IE, Safari and Chrome.
All it would take is users wondering why their Netflix or Hulu doesn't work. They Google it, and see the solution would be to install Chrome, or use the browser built into their OS - IE on Windows, Safari on OS X.
Of course, Mozilla could have influenced the W3C to reject the proposal, thus rendering the web to be a app-distirbution mechanism where you'll need to Netflix app, the Hulu app, etc., to watch Netflix or Hulu on all platforms, including PC. Click "Watch" on Netflix, or YouTube and it lauches the app where you watch it, like how it works with iTunes or Steam.
Well, I always get these extreme replies to this DRM plugin issue by geeks who claim they care oh so very much about creating a DRM-free world. I doubt any have the courage to match their convictions, of course (speaking of convictions), so really just taunting. Still, I'd be impressed by anyone who managed this stunt.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So what about PaleMoon? Scuttle has it a bunch of people are headed over that way not least because of FF29 UI Shenanigans. So why not DRM? Their entire point was to unbake bloaty parts of reg FF. So why not if they unbake the DRM from their copy?
A /. user posted a lengthy post about Pale Moon,
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/05/17/2012231/free-software-foundation-condemns-mozillas-move-to-support-drm-in-firefox.
by Futurepower(R)
It has since been rated a 5, so if you adjust the comment to show 'informative' you see it.
I downloaded it, used the migration tool, migrates all my personal setting/add-ons/bookmarks from Firefox to Pale Moon. It literally runs like the older version of firefox, FAST. I couldn't tolerate using firefox anymore, the memory V28 and previous versions used was f'in stupid. For me it never had anything to do with the UI, it was how pathetically slow and memory hogging.
It is just like Firefox's old UI set-up, it is Firefox, but re-coded without all the bulls**t Mozilla thought would work, and renamed Pale Moon. Before Futurepwoer's comment I had been seeing /. users suggesting Pale Moon, but his convinced me to try it out, I was going to investigate the browser using forums/blogs/reviews prior to his comment.
Personally thus far, Pale Moon is outstanding.
If you want the content, the choice is to tell the content providers that you will not take it with DRM attached to it.
Which will most likely be met with "fuck off, how else do you expect to lock content down by region so we can charge more in countries where people can afford more?"
And then you fuck off. It's the only thing that will stop the corporate overlords. The only thing.
Never heard of PaleMoon until your post so thanks for the tip. Have installed it and trying it out now. Not sure what you mean by FF29 UI shenanigans, I actually prefer the FF29 UI.
DRM plug-in?
Is that what this is about?
Maybe I did misread the situation..another commenter mentions the DRM plugin for Netflix etc. as well.
What about the ads? What about the other development choices by Firefox that are anti-open standards and anti-user?
I am interested in hearing more but it seems like were talking past each other, and maybe I misunderstood...
So as it stands now, Firefox has a plugin that allows things like Netflix to run w/ some kind of "DRM"...
Can the plugin be turned on and off?
Can the plugin be set to use a whitelist?
Why not do it that way? Let the user decide which sites at which times to allow things like Netflix
Thank you Dave Raggett
If Chrome, Firefox, and the other common browsers said "no", then the people who wanted DRM would have to accept their answer.
But in that case, you would probably have to use Flash or something to view the video, which wouldn't be much different.
People have always had that right in most cases. That's quite the draconian attitude you have.
It is about being civil, we all have to live together in a society so don't be an asshole. I'll give you the right to be an asshole but in return I reserve the right to beat the shit out of you for it.
Then that's their fault. And I care far more about free speech than safety.
Yeah get out of your mom's basement and into the real world then. I suppose its ok to call in a fake bomb threat too?
In practice, the idiot would just be laughed at and kicked out of the theater.
No the whole reason this issue exists is because in the real world that *doesnt* happen.
I've never--not once--seen where this whole 'falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater' thing caused a panic.
Oh well if *you* havent seen it then it *cant* be true.
That's all I've got
Weak locks are better than no locks if an assailant is likely to move on to another target. For houses this works; your neighbor is likely to have a similar amount of salable electronics, jewelry, cash, etc. Movies and games, though, are pretty much the definitive case for not having an equivalent alternate to target. A weak lock isn't going to get someone to give up on the Hobbit and go after Anchorman. Even a strong one isn't. It'll just mean fewer people are capable of breaking the lock and therefore it may take longer, or alternate approaches that bypass the lock. But someone's gonna want the Hobbit enough to stick with it.
Taxes are about making someone else pay for the service you use.
No, taxes are about making it seem like someone else is paying. When "the government" pays for something, that's YOU paying along with everyone else.
A slightly better way to put it would be that taxes are about making other people subsidize what you can't (or don't want) to afford on your own.
The problem is that most paths for taking away rights start by targeting the assholes who don't have power, and then once they've been smacked down, moving on to the next most assholish group, and so forth, with the weight of precedent getting ever larger as they go.
Also, no one is forcing you to see big movies made by big companies who spend bilions to make them, but you and I like them and want to watch them. Or you could only watch movies made by the community with a few thousand $ raised by crowdfounding, but how good would be they?
Stop watching non-free movies or TV series. After all, we're not talking about DRMed food or clothes. But you don't want to live without them, isn't it? Here it's not firefox who wants DRM, it's people, and they are acting as a tool for their users' needs.
Or does he watch community-made movies only?
I believe he considers movies and similar art to be open enough by virtue of the fact that you can see them.
The main thing he opposes here is DRM, because it gives control of your computer away to someone else.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And the fact that a closed plug-in can take control of your computer, that's another matter, I think good engineering can mitigate those risks.
I used Pale Moon for about a month, and have just switched back to Firefox. SVG rendering was broken on both my work laptop and my home PC, so I guess it's a problem with the software. You could save SVG files from websites and view them fine in an external viewer, but within the browser they seemes to be missing yellow.
As for the Firefox new UI, it's really not that bad. Tabs look neat, but didn't NEED changing, the new menu was functional for the few moments I used it to set up my addons, network settings etc. I'm ok with how Firefox is right now.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Would be nice if Firefox made it easier for people to create plugins to handle DRM and other streams. Might even make Firefox more popular.
There are many legitimate reasons to download streams for later playback even if some supposed "owner" doesn't want to let you do it. Not all countries have the same laws and from an ethical point of view I don't see how it hurts for someone to watch/playback something without stuttering and pauses (not everyone has great internet connectivity).
But did the folks at Mozilla really have a choice when it comes adding DRM?
OF COURSE they had a choice. They chose wrong. Everyone on Slashdot knows this. We all know DRM is bad. It's a fundamental mistake to cater to the stupid masses; they're stupid. If the majority of people would go along with the holocaust, (and this is exactly what happened in Germany - the majority did just go along with it) does that mean we should help enable it too? What's wrong is wrong, end of story.
Is it realistic to think that Firefox can simply ignore such things?
Yes. It's not a functionality that should be built into a browser for the idiots. Make them download a shitty add-on for it.
And another option is to just ignore the content completely.
If Mozilla wants to maintain popularity, then fire all your UX people.
ALL of them.
Stop sacrificing your current users on the UX altar, for the mythical other users "improved" UX promises you.
You could also link to the indivual comment like this: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5171649&cid=47029655
I happen to agree with you. The UI codenamed "Australis" included in 29 is god awful. Completely non-native looks and controls on Windows.
They are traitors and should be hung.
Thinking about it, they have already hung themselves with the latest Firefox updates anyway ...
... and since it is DRM and you're intentionally circumventing it, go to prison for the next 20 years or be sued for 3 trillion dollars aftwards just for writing the plugin!
The problem is, once you let DRM in, you let all of it in, including all the sick laws that cover its ass (because it cannot possibly work from a technical point of view).
Likewise, Choosing TO include some feature in your product is exercising your freedom. What's the issue?
Yes, Firefox is bundling in code to handle DRM, but you are never forced to use it. Firefox itself is not becoming DRM'd, in reality it's not entirely different to including proprietary CODEC support - you're free to use it if you want and free to ignore it if you don't want to use it. Ultimately, giving users a choice is the most freedom.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Netflix just keeps growing... And what's more, they produce non-trivial amounts of original content. They're not as big as iTMS, but they are getting there in a hurry, and I see nothing the industry is doing that could possibly stop them.
Right now, their only demands are more content and lower prices for it... That could easily change.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Uh, most people understand why taxes are a good thing. There are people who feel that we are being taxed too much, but there aren't many people who want to get rid of taxes. Some form of taxation is necessary for the operation of the government.
Most people believe that taxes are a good thing. That taxes are good is very much debatable.
That's anarcho communism you fucking idiot.
Actually DRM achieves a negative, as it drives many people who get burned by DRM to instead use alternative sources of content. Imperfect security *can* be worse than no security, depending on the circumstance.
Sure, your parents would not bother to learn how to use bittorrent, but they also would not bother to learn how to use netflix, or any other such service. Thus they are a non-issue when it comes to DRM; they just go buy something to watch, like most people do. To them it may as well not exist, as they bought a DVD player and then buy DVD's, and if they are DRM'd or not makes zero difference to them.
The ones that have an interest in new or hard to find content and have the motivation to learn about and use streaming and other such technology are the ones that get harmed by DRM, and who also have no problem finding alternative sources. Those are the ones that DRM drives away, and that is where the net loss occurs.
So sure, DRM does something. It reduces sales.
ok then let's go the RMS way and return computing 20 years to the past...
Nonsense. All they needed was an HTML5 tag identifying DRM content that starts and external player that the user can decide to use or not use.
Um, how is that any different to the HTML5 tag identifying DRM content starting an external DRM plugin that the user can decide to use or not use, which is the exact system they are implementing.
They're even trying to completely sandbox the DRM plugin so it can't access anything on your computer other than the video stream, which is much better than having a proprietary binary application running at the user's access level.
It is a stunt that will land you in jail. A stunt that will end in the Firefox browser refusing to install or communicate with any unauthorized extensions.
O RLY? I see several torrent/pirate site related add-ons in the official Firefox add-on repository...
DRM has no actual upside. There is no "Weeelll but roads are kinda nice" counter point. DRM is bad. Period. It doesn't work at it stated purpose, costs the people who implement it more money to use it, and those of up willing to bypass it do so trivially while those that are not willing suffer under new restrictions while actually being paying customers.
I think DRM is acceptable in situations where you're paying a flat subscription rate for unlimited streaming (eg. where the customer doesn't have to pay to "own" a video/song). Sure in an ideal world we wouldn't have DRM on streaming either, but if having DRM encourages media companies to licence content for streaming when they otherwise wouldn't then that's still a positive, as it gives consumers more choices and may eventually even help facilitate the downfall of said media companies by giving new players like Netflix a better base to build new business models and new methods of TV show production like House of Cards from.
Which is why all the music I buy these days is so heavily encumbered with DRM. Despite the shrill protests of the public, the only way to get the content was to accept DRM on my music files.
Oh wait, no, I don't.
I happily pay £10 a month for Spotify. The music stream is, as you put it, heavily encumbered with DRM. And it's feckin awesome. I can listen to anything I want as much as I want.
Would I buy a DRM encumbered album, TV show or movie? No. But if media companies want to encrypt streaming services that's perfectly fine with me because I'm not going to lose anything (I didn't buy anything to begin with) and I'm gaining massive convenience.
If this DRM plugin system (which will run in a sandbox so can only access the video stream) will get rid of proprietary binary plugins like Flash or Silverlight (which have complete access to your system) then that will benefit all web users.
Baker fails to explain how switching Firefox to include proprietary software fits that mission. In fact, with a bit of revisionist history, she says that open source was merely an "approach" that Mozilla Foundation was using, not their mission."
The thing is, Firefox already includes support for proprietary software like Flash and Silverlight, having a different API specifically for DRM plugins changes nothing.
This is a strategy promoted by the distributors to advance their own selfish interests, by Netflix/Google/MS, it locks the user into using the distributors web based media player, is anti-competitive, and damages the health of the open web market. By supporting the EME Mozilla has made it almost impossible for the open web community to promote alternatives, damaging the open web community, in an act of betrayal.
What is this drivel? All these distributors already lock you into use their players, either proprietary binary apps or using proprietary binary plugins like Flash or Silverlight. How would a competing open video player magically appear?
What this DRM proposal does is move the entire interface into open web standards and keeps the bare minimum (the video decryption) as a proprietary component. That is more open than the current solution and gives users more choice over the browser they access content with.
Nice strawmen there. This new DRM plugin is just as option as Flash and Silverlight currently are, did anyone come round your house and hold a gun to your head to force you to install them? No? Well I guess you can choose to not install any DRM plugins then.
We need to stop calling it DRM and call it what it really is "Digital Restrictions Malware". In the 1980s copy protected software started to appear and poeple would not buy it. Have we turned into a herd of cattle that will accept all the crap governments and corporations throw at us?
Most people don't know the risks of DRM, a lot of people don't even know what DRM is. YOU might have been overwarned, but most people have never heard of The Right to Read, and don't understand why DRM could be problematic.
The thing is...we don't have "the right to read". If I write something, you don't get the right to read it. I might give you my permission to read it, but I don't have to.
In his story, RMS was conflating "first sale rights" into "I should be able to do anything with any book, any time I want, regardless of the author's wishes". Basically, he took his free software opinions and twisted them to apply to books as well. I do agree that DRM can remove some of your first sale rights, and that's a real pain. You should be able to loan, sell, rent, etc., a book that you purchased. But, if you merely rent a book/movie/car/whatever, then you don't get all those same rights, and the story RMS wrote was about rental of books, not sale.
And, yes, I do think it's OK for a company that rents you a physical book/movie/car/whatever to put in a provision that you can't loan it to anybody else. If you don't like that provision, then do business with some other company.
I believe he considers movies and similar art to be open enough by virtue of the fact that you can see them.
This is where his lack of understanding of reality reveals itself.
There is no difference between paying to be permitted into a movie theater or art museum and paying Netflix to watch House of Cards. The only difference is that the "DRM" at the movie theater is a guy who will toss you out on your ass if you try to get by him without a ticket.
Any drop off in sales will be used to justify even more DRM, and eventually taxpayer funded bailouts if it looked like a boycott was going to be successful.
It is a stunt that will land you in jail.
A stunt that will end in the Firefox browser refusing to install or communicate with any unauthorized extensions.
Yer, like this hasn't been done before and like that's put people off doing such things in the past. We all know this is going to happen.
Anyone who equates someone who accepts DRM with someone who accepts the systematic slaughter of an entire people by the state needs to have their sense of proportion adjusted.
Alas, the world is not black and white and is various shaded of grey. Once you start accepting something history tells you it then becomes and ever so slightly steeper slope.
Don't freak out over strong analogies or because someone uses a particular word.
My biggest complaint while small is Opera always opened a new tab to the far right, everything else opens it next to the tab your in, old Opera had it right.
Go to about:config and set browser.tabs.insertRelatedAfterCurrent to false.
I'll give you the right to be an asshole but in return I reserve the right to beat the shit out of you for it.
Well, you don't have that right, unless by "beat the shit out of you," you mean arguing with someone with words.
Yeah get out of your mom's basement and into the real world then. I suppose its ok to call in a fake bomb threat too?
Why don't you leave your mom's basement and come into the Real World? The "real world" is what people who disagree with you aren't in, even though everyone lives in the "real world" and have no choice to do anything else.
I suppose its ok to call in a fake bomb threat too?
Yeah, I do think we should stop overreacting to everything. Whenever someone jokes, swat teams come in. Whenever someone falsely accuses someone of something, swat teams bust in. It's ridiculous, and needs to stop. Use some intelligent investigation if it's even necessary, and stop overreacting to everything.
No the whole reason this issue exists is because in the real world that *doesnt* happen.
You do realize that this was just made up in a court room, right? This isn't an event that was actually a well-known problem at the time it would brought up.
Oh well if *you* havent seen it then it *cant* be true.
Then kindly link to a case where this happened. It wouldn't change my mind about free speech, but I would stop saying it hasn't happened.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
DRM may be bad but losing 80% of your user base because they can't watch Netflix or Youtube is a losing proposition. The last thing we want is IE back on top.
Most home users use the internet for a few simple things: Facebook, E-Mail, Youtube and Netflix. If people can't watch some 12-year-old smash his nuts on a skateboard, they will go back to IE and funding to continue FF development will disappear.
I'm sure there will be an option to turn off DRM..... and access to most video sites in the future.
That's supposed to be our needed clout to send a message that DRM is not wanted, not as some reason to cave in to "market pressure". Will Seamonkey do the same thing? Let's hope not.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Just so we're clear, it's perfectly possible to support a family of four on $1000/month (less than one full-time, minimum wage, income), even without government subsidies, provided you're not trying to do so in a major city where rent for a studio apartment will cost $2000+. When somebody says they're being "forced with money" it very rarely means that their survival is in jeopardy, it means they want the luxuries that extra money can buy badly enough that they're willing compromise on whatever principles are being called into question. Granted those luxuries are initially things like "live in a home with more than one room", "eat something other than beans and rice", and "have health insurance", but those are all things that most people in the world don't have.
More to the point, when you hear someone claiming to be "forced with money" it's usually over a very fat paycheck, so there's no possible dodge around the fact that what they really mean is "I was sufficiently bribed"
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Netflix not work if you dont use it is not forcing you you say.
Without adblock plus I would have already closed my laptop killed my network connection and never used the internet ever again.
I know for a fact my parents could never be bothered to learn how to use bittorrent. They just went and bought it instead when I moved out. Which implies that it does work to at least some degree. Not necessarily that the benefit exceeds the cost, but I don't think it's fundamentally honest to say that DRM has no benefit for anybody.
On the other hand, since your parents don't know how to use bittorrent, they probably would have bought whatever it is regardless of whether there was DRM or not. I think this applies to a lot of people, and so I'm inclined to agree with my fellow AC: DRM doesn't succeed in blocking people truly interested in circumventing it, and the people who buy/rent/license the content/product/widget are generally not doing so just because they can't figure out (or piggy-back off of someone else figuring out) how to get around the DRM.
And what does Opera have to say about all this?
Does this answer your question?
''The Opera Devices SDK provides an excellent end-user experience on Smart TV. With its support we have been able to fast-track the certification for premium content, encompassing specifications like Encrypted Media Extensions, and enabling superior rendering and rapid time to market,'' says Lou Schreurs, Senior Vice-President of Product Creation, Bang & Olufsen. ''It has helped us to deliver the high-quality viewing experience that Bang & Olufsen customers have come to expect from our TVs.''
Opera Devices SDK to power Bang & Olufsen connected TVs
The "easier target" in this case is obtaining the product legally.
Socialism just means shared ownership of the factors of production, and some factors of production (land/air/etc) are not the result of anyone's own work.
And denying people the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also "the opposite of freedom."
No it's not. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose - thus, we all have more freedom in total by banning harmful lies about imminent danger. I know it's easy to be tempted by the elegant simplicity of "do what thou wilt", but it's an inaccurate model of freedom.
Thank you for the whackjob POV, now back to reality.
Cheap storage VM.
Nope, just DRM.
Yes the UX is different and therefore bad. They didn't do any user testing or anything to figure out what the best options were. Version 1.0 of any software should be final from a UI standpoint because nothing can ever be improved once a user has learned the initial way to do things.
Just like how Google was going to drop h.264 in favor of pushing its WebM
Except DRM is used to take away freedom from the end user. I will never use a browser that supports this shit.
It's too bad. Firefox is getting beaten badly by Chrome and not giving approval to DRM could have been a selling point to get users to come back. Now it will simply fade into obscurity as Chrome continues to take over.
That is the freedom of the firefox developers to choose. One choice limits the freedom of the end-user to decide if they want to or not.
I'm going to get some news story going where Bill_the_Engineer uses child labor for his underground cock fighting and drug ring. Obviously Bill_the_Engineer should be OK with this since saying otherwise would be restricting my rights.
I think this is key, people are conflating "Mozilla is allowing the option of running a separate, external, close sourced, plugin" (which as you point out is no different than Flash/Silverlight) as being "OMG Mozilla is closed source now and ever single webpage has DRM now!!11"
Wrong. It provides _less_ choice. The DRM will be completely transparent to the end user. The average user won't know DRM is involved, and thus won't have the choice to reject it.
I don't know what they pay you per post, Mr. DRM Stockholm Syndrome, but it's too much.
That is some serious wishful thinking.
Maybe... But DRM is the case for now with or without Mozilla. There is no way the content industry will let NetFlix and Hulu will drop DRM right now.
So what is the alternative, denying people NetFlix and Hulu? We all know they'll go to Chrome and IE, or NetFlix will make a binary plugin for Firefox, which won't be sandboxed.
The only reason DRM went away on music is because Apple did some economic jujitsu on the publishers making them choose between money or control, apple's complete domination of music DRM meant they could dictate terms to the industry as long as the industry required DRM.
Let's hope netflix grows powerful enough...
(1) Why do you think they encrypt the streams individually instead of just once and store the encrypted files on their server just like bluray discs of the same movie all have identical encryption?
NetFlix don't implement DRM out the evil in their hearts :)
They do it because the content industry requires it... And the content industry requires each stream to be encrypted individually... They require a complicated protocol that ensures that each device is uniquely identified...
Security through obscurity is complicated (no surprise there).
(2) Encryption is super cheap now that dedicated hardware is built into modern CPUs - a typical Xeon processor can do 700MB/s with AES-NI on just one core. Intel makes Xeons with 15 cores per chip nowadays.
But building a large CDN with this kind of special hardware is expensive, very expensive. Without DRM movies could be streamed directly from a normal CDN.
yeah right - just like in communism the government is supposed to eventually fade away...
I haven't heard that one before... But I suspect that like most Americans you probably don't really know what communism is... And have a tendency to confuse it with totalitarian dictatorships.
:)
Either way, I fail to see the relevance
What planet are you living on? On a normal budget, rent is not supposed to be more than 33% of your take home pay. Please tell me where in the US you can find a 2 bedroom apartment for $333/mo? Even if two people are working that's $666 per month. If you do happen to find rent that low, you're either in a very high crime area or you're in a small town with some serious limitations on employment.
People *choose* to consume DRM'd content, they do not have to. But the Jews did not *choose* to be a part of the Holocaust you ignorant pig. It is *you* who is ignorant of what an analogy is.
The analogy is not about victims of either evil at all. It's all about people who did nothing to stop evil that was right in front of them. It's about people who thought it was not their problem. And most importantly, it's about people who made themselves blind to the evil they were actively participating on as expendable grunts because "it was their job."
In that sense, Holocaust was only made possible by "people living and working in the real world." Because without all those otherwise completely normal good people who were "just doing their job," the real monsters could never get that far.
The end result wouldn't be "less people use websites containing DRM content" it would be "less people use Firefox".
Let the default download of a new firefox randonly select either with- or without-DRM. Cound the number of times the same user goes back and selects a non-default browser from a list that explicitly says whether they have DRM or not.
Done well, no-one will even notice.
In this experiment, I expect the null hypothesis will be "no-one cares", and will win (:-))
davecb@spamcop.net
If anyone believes it without verifying anything, it's their fault. Our system is setup so that personal responsibility no longer exists, and those who do the real damage are never blamed.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Okay, two things:
1) When living at the bottom end of the socioeconomic ladder the "rules" for middle-class budgeting don't necessarily apply. Hell, they don't apply to a *lot* of people who choose to live an atypical lifestyle.
2) Check your reading comprehension, I specifically implied that in a lot of places you might only be living in a one room (not even one *bedroom*) home. That you assume 4 people = 2+ bedrooms is strictly a result of the opulent lifestyle we've acclimated to here in the West.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So basically, by your logic, using any browser that supports NPAPI or PPAPI or ActiveX is making you complicit in DRM shenanigans, even if you disagree to use NPAPI/EME/etc for DRM purposes by installing Flash or a CDM and viewing DRMed content?
I think people on this thread are just upset that Mozilla is unwilling to do EVERYTHING for them, and even take the bullet too. After all, it's so much easier to pretend you have the moral high ground while not DOING anything yourself. After all, we're using Firefox, so that entitles us to demand the world of Mozilla while not doing anything to stop DRM ourselves.
At the most basic level; If there is a software utility exist in a platform I use,I can choose to use or not to use it, so I have the freedom. If such utility does not exist I cannot decide to use it so I do not have the freedom....
Yes you have - you have the freedom to build the feature yourself if you want it. Freedom doesn't mean that other people are obliged to go out of their way to make things easy for you.
But isn't paying the cinema ticket or the TV tax a form of DRM? The fact that he can see a movie does not give him the right, for example, to record it with a camera while he's at the cinema in order to watch it again later.
No, it would only be DRM if there was something in the cinema that physically prevented the camera from working (or at least attempted to prevent it). And that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing as long as it didn't interfere with legal activities.
The thing is, Firefox already includes support for proprietary software like Flash and Silverlight
It supports plugins, which may be open source or proprietary.
having a different API specifically for DRM plugins changes nothing
So why are we doing it?
moving forward, there is no longer a major browser that hasn't caved to big media, and DRM. That is, in itself, a continuation of a disturbing trend we're seeing across the Internet, and computing in general.
The geek represents a small and diminishing minority of Internet users.
The PC and the general purpose web browser is not the only or even the dominant platform for accessing media content distributed across the net. If a browser breaks the distribution chain in any way, the masses will go elsewhere ---
it isn't worth discussing erecting barriers to Netflix play, Hulu, Pandora, etc.
Do you think that Stallman has only criticized Mozilla for supporting DRM? Geezus.
No, we don't. We simply understand where bad things start and that it is easiest to quench them at the source.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Again, I don't care at all whether it's a plugin, an extension, a core feature, a kernel extension or microcode embedded on the mainboard. There is no justifiable reason to support DRM, and by doing so the Mozilla Foundation has, in my eyes, violated its own charter which specifically talks about freedom and openness.
It's like hating communism but voting for the communist party because you want to fit in. Or hating republicans but voting for the Tea Party because all your neighbours do it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The bad things started when Flash added encrypted video. This is making things a bit better than before.
Utterly correct, especially as long as there are alternatives.
If DRM is so precious to you, go use IE.
No! You will respect Mozilla's freedom to implement whatever they like in their browser, you do not have the right to strip them of that freedom no matter how much you think you do. So if you don't like their decision then don't use their browser, or better yet stop being so lazy and remove it yourself, they afforded you that freedom by making it open source.
There are even forks, PaleMoon for example. So why do you so badly want Firefox when it clearly is the wrong product for you?
The problem is, once you let DRM in, you let all of it in, including all the sick laws that cover its ass (because it cannot possibly work from a technical point of view).
You need laws to protect content creators, it is like any other industry where the creation cost is amortized across its customers. New cars cost hundreds of millions of dollars to design, tool, test and build but are you paying hundreds of millions of dollars for your car? No. Are you paying just the cost of shipping and of parts and labor to put the parts together? No. You contribute to amortizing the huge R&D cost. It's the same thing in the content industry, the distribution and reproduction costs are trivial but that doesn't mean you don't have to contribute to the development costs.
If you disagree with that system then restrict yourself to free content.
So how about you wait till they write the code before you complain they're not telling you exactly how it works?
If it is helping them, you have no right to complain.
Actually, you have no right to complain either way. If you don't want what someone offers or how they offer it, don't buy it.
You can't force someone to sell you their wares in a form you want.
notsureifserious.jpg
Hey guys! We got an Internet Badass up in here!
You cannot argue with Bill the "Engineer". He is always right. You are always wrong. He will hold steadfastly to his "rightness" with a zealot's resolve. It kind of makes you wonder exactly what he "engineers" as knowing that would give you a very clear line of products to avoid like the plague.
If it is helping them, you have no right to complain.
Actually, you have no right to complain either way.
Since when do we not have the right to free speech? You are aware, of course, that making your objections known, in addition to not buying the product, is pretty much the only way to change things? You need to let them know what's wrong, and it's well within your rights to do so.
If you don't want what someone offers or how they offer it, don't buy it.
There's another option that many people choose to take.
You can't force someone to sell you their wares in a form you want.
This is a straw man.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
No.
Mozilla did have a choice. They made the wrong one.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Wrong. It provides _less_ choice.
No you are wrong, it provides more choice than what we had before. Previously we had plugins like Flash and Silverlight that had DRM that was transparent to the user, now we have a binary EME module. Don't like DRM? Remove or block that module just as you would with Flash or Silverlight.
The DRM will be completely transparent to the end user.
That's the way it should be if they choose not to block the module. If you prefer it a different way then get cracking on a forked project, it is open source so the real question is why are you flogging a dead horse (from your perspective) instead of taking the action that is so clear and obvious?
The average user won't know DRM is involved, and thus won't have the choice to reject it.
The average user doesnt know what DRM is. Nor do they now if it is in Flash or Silverlight form for example, you didn't know that? Perhaps you need to do some research then!
I don't know what they pay you per post, Mr. DRM Stockholm Syndrome, but it's too much.
Ah the ad hominem attack, the mark of someone too uneducated on a topic to provide a legitimate rebuttal.
My biggest complaint while small is Opera always opened a new tab to the far right, everything else opens it next to the tab your in, old Opera had it right.
Go to about:config and set browser.tabs.insertRelatedAfterCurrent to false.
Thank you! PaleMoon opens tabs to the far right by default, might be a real decent browser.
Well, you seem to have read point 1 anyway. Not sure if you read the rest of my post before replying, but good try anyway.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
. If you don't like that provision, then do business with some other company.
Indeed I will.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So, RMS has been thinking about these issues for a long time, possibly longer than you've been alive. He's thought deeply about it, and his theories are largely self-consistent. If you think that you're going to be able to poke holes in his theories by speculating on the internet, without actually reading what he wrote, you are wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Taxes are a way of getting other to pay for services they do not use.
No they are a way for everybody to contribute to building the society in which we all live. If you want to live in a bubble somewhere then go right ahead and move somewhere were there is no society.
YOU might have been overwarned, but most people have never heard of The Right to Read, and don't understand why DRM could be problematic.
And that's a good thing because that essay is moronic, something that is clear, plain and simple from the first paragraph that you would have to be a monumental mental defective to miss:
For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college—when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.
This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her—but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong—something that only pirates would do.
When you share a physical book you share your copy of that book, you don't make another copy of it. Now while it may be illegal to share an additional copy of a copyrighted work, be that physical or digital, the method of sharing laid out in the scenario in the essay is not illegal at all. The essay attempts to make a reductio ad absurdum argument extrapolating a change that does not exist, the fact is you were never allowed to make an additional copy of a copyrighted work and share that, anybody with even a fundamental understand of the concept of copyright knows that.
The essay makes the critical and obvious mistake of not differentiating between sharing a single copy of the text and making an additional copy of the text to share as an attempt to fool the reader.
No the assertion that you do not retain the right to record a copy of the movie in a cinema is correct and in the sense of DRM being a restriction of rights that waiver of those rights most certainly does equate to DRM. Your assumption that RMS must be consistent simply because he has thought about it for a long time just leads you to being a sheep to whatever he says. A legitimate point is raised here yet you dismiss it on the basis that your shepherd has not addressed it for you.
Your assumption that RMS must be consistent simply because he has thought about it for a long time just leads you to being a sheep to whatever he says.
I think RMS is consistent because I've read what he's written. You clearly haven't, so go read it then we can talk.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes, he did criticize it. Also, keep in mind that Stallman's 'web browser' is wget'ing the pages and viewing them in Emacs.
If you enjoy film and television, and previously music, then ignoring the content completely isn't an option. I am a human being. I exist to do more than just think about carbon footprints or the innate desire of all non-sentient things to be free. I love art. I consume things. I travel. I work. I go through life demanding that everything I interact with be open source. I haven't personally audited the software that runs on the commercial aircraft or subways I travel on. I don't refuse to store my leftovers in smart refrigerators that I don't have full source code to. Sure, others live as hermits and luddites, and just turn away from every modern piece of technology, and have accepting the challenges. RMS once noted how he would be in trouble once his laptop died because everything about the laptop is non-proprietary. I choose to be free to enjoy the world around me, and that has meant availing myself of things people like RMS despise, namely DRM, proprietary closed-source software, and patents. The irony is that RMS chooses to fly too, so even he fails to hold true to his own faith.
Just for your information.
No, Mr. "+2 whatever I write", he's not been thinking about that for longer than I've been alive, and yes, I read much of what he wrote.
Good job. I hope next time your post will actually reflect that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You can't blame the working poor for wanting luxuries. All work and no play would make someone go insane, would it not?
I would favor some sort of negative income tax, where every dollar earned might reduce it by 50 cents, to be incentive to work. This way you can have a group of adult pooling it together to live under one roof, perhaps with some luxuries.
I wish we could stop saying, "class". How about calling them middle-income earners?
Never excuse one bad thing with another bad thing.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yeah, nice argument: "I'm right, so stop talking". Classic Slashdot, usually rewarded with good karma.
yeah but RMS is usually right. Give me one instance where something he rallied for, but was ignored, _didn't_ turn out to a complete cluster fuck for users, and proved that his stance was the correct one from the word go.
They already actively support DRM through binary plugins, so what's the difference? If you've been using Firefox you've already voted for the communist party, so why complain now?
If you've been using Firefox you've already voted for the communist party, so why complain now?
For the same reason I left the Pirate Party when it stopped being about civil liberties and started being about everyone's favorite pet-subject no matter if it has any relation with the core topics at all:
That I voted for a party yesterday doesn't mean I can't change my mind today if the party changes.
Yes, you could implement DRM through binary plugins before, but there's still a difference between that and explicitly supporting DRM. If you don't see that difference, I'm unable to explain it because to me that is just so absolutely clear.
Here, let me try: If I eat in your restaurant and I like your food, I'll come there to eat more often, and I don't care about your political views. But if you turn your restaurant into a political arena with posters and leaflets everywhere and the party colours all around and waiters dressed in uniforms, and I find the political views thus expressed distasteful, I may quite likely stop to come, even if the food hasn't changed.
You could argue you held those views before, and many of your political friends also came to eat - but there's still a vast difference between those two scenarios. And again I don't know how to explain it, because to me it is so utterly obvious.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes, you could implement DRM through binary plugins before, but there's still a difference between that and explicitly supporting DRM. If you don't see that difference, I'm unable to explain it because to me that is just so absolutely clear.
I understand the difference from a narrow ideological argument, but can you see that the current system is worse for internet freedom than the system they are proposing?
After installing Firefox as soon as you start browsing video sites you are actively prompted to download and install a dangerous, closed source proprietary plugin that has complete access to your local system resources. Firefox has always supported this, and never tried to prevent this from happening.
The new system removes any need for that plugin, instead any proprietary component is reduced to the bare minimum and run in a sandbox.
It just makes no sense to denounce Mozilla for offering an extremely limited video decoding API while ignoring the fact they actively support monstrosities like Flash.
He's serious. And this stupid meme you just did makes no sense to me. Is it popular because computer-illiterate children have discovered that the images on webpages reference files on a webserver? Is it an age thing? I'm 31. Am I too old to understand the appeal of this meme?
We are losing the battle against the forces of the dark side. UEFI, DRM, https-proxies, uncontrolled intrusion of governments, net neutrality, the community has been beaten .. no whipped on almost all topics. Why? Because a lot of us are just too lazy to fight. It's easy to bitch on Facebook, ./ or Twitter. But it doesn't change things. We are about to be demoted from being owners of the Internet to 'users' of a digital transport medium. What does that mean? It will be harder and harder to bring innovation to the people, it will become almost impossible to inform the public about security problems and risks. You will see pay walls and DMCA warnings popping up everywhere. And you will pay through your noses for all kinds of stuff that used to be free. We all we be tracked, controlled, analyzed and exploited by some mindless stupid program somewhere trying to make sense of our latest purchases. The few of us in the "know" will withdraw to some remote digital islands, but the rising waters of the "global harming" of the Internet will soon wash away all traces of the Internet as it was meant to be. Mozilla used to be a force against the global harming. But they are no longer. Their digital levees will not be able to contain the global harming of the DRM modules and, within a few months or years, they will become useless. Innovation and FOSS made the Internet a great place to be. Greediness will take it down. It was wrong for Mozilla to accept DRM. But understandable. Because they are not sure if they can still rely on the "community" to come to their defense if needed. So they played it safe in order to survive. Its sad. But understandable. And realistic.
Certainly we can't. However my point was only that unless you're at the bottom of the heap "I was forced by the money" is a complete cop-out. Perhaps I ld have expressed that more clearly.
As for eliminating the term "class", how about we first eliminate the high socioeconomic barriers between income strata? So long as the game remains heavily stacked against upwards mobility there is very definitely a class war being waged by those at the top, and of course they do not want to openly acknowledge that fact and give added legitimacy to the complaints of the repressed.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If you enjoy film and television, and previously music, then ignoring the content completely isn't an option.
If all you're able to enjoy is DRM-encumbered garbage, then you may have a problem on your hands. Seriously, stop being a "consumer"; it's just a waste of money, and an insulting term.
You cannot "consume" content; it'll be there afterwards. Just a propaganda term.
Sure, others live as hermits and luddites, and just turn away from every modern piece of technology
Erm... you're out of your fucking mind if you think that you have to live as a hermit or a luddite (You do know that luddites were people who opposed technology to save their jobs, right?) just because you don't use proprietary software or DRM.
so even he fails to hold true to his own faith.
What about your own stupid "faith" (Man, people don't even know how to use that term.), where everything is surrendered in the name of being a worthless "consumer"?
And that's probably just a misunderstanding on your part. Few people pay attention to what he actually says.
Besides, there's one final option if you really want to "consume" the content: Just download it.
Do people seriously use the word "consume" when they're talking about watching movies, or other such things? Really? I'd say only idiots do that.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
True, you are right I have put little effort into addressing your arguments. Consider that it's all your arguments deserve. If you actually cared about the topic, you would have researched, found out what RMS believed on the topic, then quoted to me to show why I am wrong. But you didn't, which is why you are ignorant. I mean, 'not researching' is essentially the definition of ignorance. To that point, you don't even deserve the responses I've already given you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I didn't say I support the use of Flash. On the contrary, now that we have HTML5 video and SVG and CSS animations, flash should go the way of the Dodo bird, and fast.
However, one evil never justifies another evil.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Way to put words into my mouth.
Not "therefore bad". Nevertheless it IS bad. Their rationales don't make sense (see 'Tabs on top' UX video where they don't list all the cons, and then conclude that because there are more pros than cons the change is therefore good, never mind that the single con by itself outweighs the 3 pros [some of which don't make any sense anyway]) Note also how they promised that tabs on the bottom weren't going away, they just wouldn't be the default. Surprise, now they are gone.
This is the most unethical and/or idiotic argument I have ever seen in /. . You sir, besides being an Anonymous Coward, are also a complete idiot. I do not know what is your fucking degree is, but it obviously was granted by mistake, during an examination that does not require existence of a brain in your skull. I can write programs in several languages, and this is my profession for the last 24 years. By your argument, while I should be able to use my rights, 99% of human population would need to learn coding in order to be able to use theirs, in a society which spent more time to type on a keyboard than write using a pen.....
It really is an argument over the content provider compared to the content playing services.
FF decision to include the DRM is only to keep their market share alive to those who are unaware/don't care about DRM and just want a functional browser. The real fight for those educated/annoyed with DRM should be against the content distributors... Bring the fight to them and vote with your dollars by finding alternative's to the content that is DRM-free!
Maybe FF could include a notice when a DRM file is active(a icon lights up 'DRM' maybe), so users can easily learn which sites come with that crap.