41–50 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who want DRM there are already enough browser choices. On the other hand for people who refuse DRM there's only one choice - and soon zero.
That isn't the case. You can choose to not install the CDM component.
Technology should never force it's users (the sites creators) to use one technology or another. Not implementing DRM is idiotic for couple of reasons: 1. The decision of whether or not to use DRM should be of the site creators. That's as "free" as it gets. forcing them otherwise by not letting them the option is bad. 2. Even without implementing it, DRM is available through flash or silverlight or any other third par…
> The decision of whether or not to use DRM should be of the site creators. That's as "free" as it gets. Why does that mean that we should facilitate their use of DRM? If they want to use it, they can specify a third-party plugin.
But rather it's an overhead for the user. you'll have to install a third-party plugin on your computer. Making it to your job now to make sure this plugin is not security vulnerable, that it is updated etc' etc'. And, it's probably closed. the web is open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who want DRM there are already enough browser choices. On the other hand for people who refuse DRM there's only one choice - and soon zero.
That isn't the case. You can choose to not install the CDM component.
Mozilla had to be dragged into this acceptance kicking and screaming (metaphorically). They were faced with a hard choice, Not implement EME (HTML5 DRM) and risk users moving to other browsers (user loss) or implement EME and risk looking like they are contradicting their core mission (trust loss). They figured a little loss of trust is worth keeping most of the users on the Mozilla platform - which in my view is the…
Right, they are using "their power to influence the development of the open web" by supporting DRM. What's the point in having this power if you immediately cave?
Mozilla has no real power over the web. Google, Microsoft, and Apple have the power (look at the names associated with EME DRM - what a surprise). Mozilla has an illusion of power, which is tolerated by the other actors because it makes everyone happy. But no one should mistake it for real leverage.
There is always a choice mozilla, please make the right one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't the case. You can choose to not install the CDM component.
Apple has for political reasons disabled the possibility to install a Flash plugin on Safari/iOS. Why doesn't Firefox do the same with a CDM component for political reasons?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who want DRM there are already enough browser choices. On the other hand for people who refuse DRM there's only one choice - and soon zero.
no. drm will still be an add-on, just like it is today. The DRM add-on will just change from flash/silverlight. DRM is a very real thing in todays web.
Flash is not an add-on, but a plugin. And there is a good reason why plugins have a bad image and browser developers and users prefer to get rid of them.