Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

Post by andreyf » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:21 PM UTC

isomorphic wrote: post #29

michaelt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of replacing Flash with HTML5 video is to get rid of buggy third party plugins that crash all the time and have shitty cross-platform support. If HTML5 video is going to rely on buggy third party DRM plugins, we lose the benefit that was the whole point of HTML5 video.

I run my browsers without Flash in order to avoid Adobe's exploit-du-jour crapware. This means, for example, that I don't run Chrome. If this binary blob from Adobe isn't presented with a similar UI as regular "plugins" (that the user can disable or uninstall), then I will look into writing an extension to disable it, or perhaps rely on a Firefox fork to give me a Flash-lite(tm) free browser.

Post by michaelt » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:22 PM UTC

snird wrote: post #21

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…

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:25 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #39

stormbrew wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could make the choice of what content to watch and what to watch it with independently, this could be said to be a free market decision. As is, my decision to support or not support DRM dictates the content I can watch. That for most people the content is more important gives the false signal that people are choosing DRM (which, in reality, pretty much nobody would). That's not a functional free market. There…

I feel like this is a rationalization. The fact that a market is free doesn't mean that producers can't sell on the terms they want. There is DRM-free content, just not the content you want. Content creators choose to use DRM because very few users object to it, and I bet with modern DRM most don't even know it exists. That's a perfectly functional free market. Its like saying that there isn't a functional free marke…

Post by toyg » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:27 PM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #45

howeyc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ding ding ding! You've hit the nail on the head. 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.

Post by ggchappell » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:28 PM UTC

jgraham wrote: post #40

ggchappell wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let's assume that, in the former case, the functionality required is built into the browser and enabled by default. The problem with the former case, then, is that I get a browser that ostensibly supports my freedom, and this code that runs things secretly, without letting me intervene or analyze, comes in with it, under the radar. In the latter case, I have to take a deliberate action, explicitly agree to a li…

To quote [1]: " * Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content. * We have surrounded the closed-source portion with an open-source wrapper. This allows us to monitor and better understand the scope of activities of the closed-source code." So your hypothetical built-into-the-browser and on-by-default implementation does not descr…