101–110 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been made clear that, whatever happens, "users will have control over whether the CDM is used in their copy of Firefox."
"...until we decide otherwise" (for different values of "we") Edit: Added last part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the wrong choice. It's the same BS I remember reading on slides from graphics card vendors excusing some other way of selling the user down the river. Content can adapt to reach their customers. Bend here and the web itself is under threat. Mozilla needs a social contract like Debian, since it seems clear they can't rely on leadership for backbone.
Did you seriously just equate closed source graphics drivers to slavery?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the wrong choice. It's the same BS I remember reading on slides from graphics card vendors excusing some other way of selling the user down the river. Content can adapt to reach their customers. Bend here and the web itself is under threat. Mozilla needs a social contract like Debian, since it seems clear they can't rely on leadership for backbone.
Did you seriously just equate closed source graphics drivers to slavery?
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…
It is the wrong choice. It's the same BS I remember reading on slides from graphics card vendors excusing some other way of selling the user down the river. Content can adapt to reach their customers. Bend here and the web itself is under threat. Mozilla needs a social contract like Debian, since it seems clear they can't rely on leadership for backbone.
Don't bend here and Mozilla itself could be under threat.
DRM exists, many major content providers have shown little interest in releasing their material without a mechanism for preventing casual copying (and you can hardly blame them), and accessing multimedia downloads is an increasingly important function of the Web. Denying that reality isn't going to achieve anything useful.
As much as Mozilla might like to take a principled stand, the fact is that they aren't important enough to force this issue. If someone can't access content in Firefox, they don't not access the content, they just use another browser. The content provider still served their content, the user still watched it, and it was still DRM'd. The only practical difference is that Mozilla lost a user.
You fight the battles you can win. There is no way Mozilla could win this one.
So time to fork Firefox?
This is true. I'd like to see a case in Court where the law about fair use is in conflict with the law that allows something that has been DRMed to be completely protected, legally. I assume fair use would win, but I'd still like to see that case, because then it could become a lot easier to break DRM in order to "excercise your fair use right", and circumventing DRM might become legal again, in effect killing DRM for good. Then even companies like Mozilla could implement DRM unlockers in their browsers and so on, since it would be perfectly legal to do so.
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…
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.
In response to this, some of you might say 'well then people would go elsewhere for their content', to which I would ask: did people leave Netflix because of Silverlight?
From a comment by a Mozilla employee on another thread, it seems that the UI for this has not yet been determined[0]. It's possible that this may be presented to the user in a way similar to a plugin installation, except that the plugin happens to be provided by Mozilla (not a third-party). This isn't great, but to the end user, it looks the same as Flash and Silverlight. Especially if Mozilla were to add click-to-pl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the wrong choice. It's the same BS I remember reading on slides from graphics card vendors excusing some other way of selling the user down the river. Content can adapt to reach their customers. Bend here and the web itself is under threat. Mozilla needs a social contract like Debian, since it seems clear they can't rely on leadership for backbone.
Did you seriously just equate closed source graphics drivers to slavery?