Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#2(2014)
Although this is relevant again since they also decided to put DRM in Firefox OS for the Matchstick (curiously, the plan is Adobe DRM for desktop Firefox and Microsoft DRM for Matchstick; corrections/clarifications are welcome).
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#3I expect this to be downvoted soon as the folks here plainly seem to prefer to be able to consume visual junk food via netflix rather than opt or push for open standards.
Don't come crying back later when netfucks change the standards again, and the WC3 roll over and blindly accept it, and your computer becomes an expensive locked down media player.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#4I expect this to be downvoted soon as the folks here plainly seem to prefer to be able to consume visual junk food via netflix rather than opt or push for open standards. Don't come crying back later when netfucks change the standards again, and the WC3 roll over and blindly accept it, and your computer becomes an expensive locked down media player.
I downvoted your comment because of the non-constructive tone.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#5(2014) Although this is relevant again since they also decided to put DRM in Firefox OS for the Matchstick (curiously, the plan is Adobe DRM for desktop Firefox and Microsoft DRM for Matchstick; corrections/clarifications are welcome).
Matchstick isn't a Mozilla project, is it? It happens to be built on Firefox OS code, but anyone can use that code, and Matchstick is made by a third party. Mozilla can't prevent someone from building a Firefox OS product and adding Microsoft DRM to it.
So I think the "they" in your statement there might be confusing, as it seems to imply Mozilla is doing something here.
(btw, I hadn't heard about this latest development with matchstick regarding Microsoft DRM, link?)
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#6Except that Firefox does not include the closed source bits when distributed, and only downloads then on demand. If you don't watch DRM'ed content, you don't need closed source DRM, and once https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1089876 is fixed, you can disable EME altogether and ensure your installation's purity.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#7I expect this to be downvoted soon as the folks here plainly seem to prefer to be able to consume visual junk food via netflix rather than opt or push for open standards. Don't come crying back later when netfucks change the standards again, and the WC3 roll over and blindly accept it, and your computer becomes an expensive locked down media player.
DRM = SkyNet
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#8I don't understand how this is any worse than Firefox supporting (and reluctantly promoting) closed source plugins for years. In fact, this situation will be far better than Flash, Silverlight and all other plugins ever.
Why is supporting EME and limiting closed source crapware to a minimum so bad, while supporting huge closed source, bug ridden application runtimes sort of okay?
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#9There is an unintuitive takeaway from this.
The reason Firefox is allowing this is that browsers and operating systems produced by nonprofits acting in the public interest don't have enough market share to resist being dictated to by for-profit corporations. Imagine FirefoxOS had the market share of Android and Debian had the market share of Windows. Would we still be having this conversation?
The free software people have been preaching this for decades. It turns out they're right.
So don't install Chrome, use Firefox. Then next time it will be easier for Mozilla to do the right thing.
Re: Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart (2014)
#10I don't understand how this is any worse than Firefox supporting (and reluctantly promoting) closed source plugins for years. In fact, this situation will be far better than Flash, Silverlight and all other plugins ever. Why is supporting EME and limiting closed source crapware to a minimum so bad, while supporting huge closed source, bug ridden application runtimes sort of okay?
I think it's a valid point that EME reduces the amount of closed-source code. This was among the arguments used by Google and Microsoft when promoting EME.
However, on the other hand:
1. EME is an actual W3C standard. It feels - and is - wrong for an organization like the W3C to promote an API that is not about openness, but rather about the opposite.
2. While EME proponents - and DRM proponents in general - argue "content makers will never accept delivery without DRM", that is far from clear. First, and most importantly, just a few months ago The Interview was sold online, without DRM whatsoever, and it made lots of money. The sky didn't fall. Second, the argument that "DRM is necessary" was also said about digital music, which eventually dropped DRM. Finally, there are also alternatives like watermarking (with their own downsides, to be sure) which over time could be explored.
Overall, I think it is sad that Google, Microsoft and Netflix have won and EME is unavoidable at this point. But, given the power of those entities, only a miracle could have stopped it.