Save Firefox
eff.org
Save Firefox
1–10 of 266 posts
Re: Save Firefox
#2Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be?
Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r...
Chrome's had it since v 42
Re: Save Firefox
#3Doesn't Mozilla have a lucrative deal with Yahoo? I mean Yahoo!
Re: Save Firefox
#4Doesn't Mozilla have a lucrative deal with Yahoo? I mean Yahoo!
yeah but so? from my read-through, its not literally "save the one and only firefox", its "we need an environment that allows for other browsers to enter the field" which DRM prevents
Re: Save Firefox
#5> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be.
This isn't about the W3C.
This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ).
Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only thing that can work is to put direct pressure on the parties behind EME, and their products: Google and Chrome, Microsoft and IE/Edge, and Netflix.
Not only is it not effective to focus on the W3C, it's counterproductive - it shifts the blame away from the real culprits just mentioned. If you lobby the W3C against EME but still use products from the companies that created EME, you're sending mixed messages at best.
Furthermore, even if somehow we got the W3C to not do EME, it wouldn't matter. Google, Microsoft and Netflix would still be implementing it. They would just find another standards body.
Re: Save Firefox
#6Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be? Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r... Chrome's had it since v 42 https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808
Because, with the recent decisions re Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind aren't getting better - they're actually getting worse. Also, EFF has been running articles about DRM lately. It's not that we're only stoking the fire now... It's that they are writing about it again.
Re: Save Firefox
#7Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins.
The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do.
The lesser of two evils was chosen. You don't have to like it, but that's the reality of this situation. It is not realistic to suggest that the largest browser vendors not support user demanded content.
Speaking of philosophical positions, most DRMed content accessed by a user in a browser is going to be of the streaming variety, i.e. something that DRM isn't preventing you from doing something you're otherwise not supposed to be doing anyways.
Re: Save Firefox
#8> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only…
That goes without saying. I don't think EFF encourages anyone to use DRMed services, quite the opposite.
Re: Save Firefox
#9As much I would love to... Just recently switched from FF to Chrome since the latter just works technically a lot better :-(
Hope the new servo engine can make FF shine again otherwise I fear the worst.
Re: Save Firefox
#10Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be? Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r... Chrome's had it since v 42 https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808
Because, with the recent decisions re Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind aren't getting better - they're actually getting worse. Also, EFF has been running articles about DRM lately. It's not that we're only stoking the fire now... It's that they are writing about it again.
background?