More than 20% of the Internet?
1 Like
(emphasis mine)
There are two definitions of ‘should’ that might be at play here.
-
in a morally just world, this is how things would work
-
this is how things will probably work
I think many of us probably agree on #1, but are less than confident on #2.
I probably will.
That is correct, and the sandboxing will probably be free software.
However, Mozilla will now endorse and recommend an EME plugin by Adobe that is not free software. And it should be. No user should ever be compelled to use non-free software, for any reason. That they might choose to do so is another matter.
Being the ones who stepped down to corporate pressure when they could and should have stood up for their users and refused to endorse any of this DRM mentality is not so great either.
Indeed, they are not. Please recommend an alternative plugin for streaming Netflix.
When Netflix drop their DRM I will. Till then, I won’t recommend anyone to stream Netflix, but to use non-DRM’ed alternatives. Or buy DVDs.
The Adobe EME plugin is opt-in and isn’t installed unless you choose to install it. Clearly, you will not choose to do so. How are you compelled?
1 Like
Some of us prefer higher resolution video than 640x480 on optical media. I don’t even have a device that can play optical media. Certainly none of my computers have it.
1 Like
I think we’re too obsessed with material possessions and physical artifacts as it is. I’d rather take a death by a thousand DRM cuts than acquire more crap that will eventually have to be hauled off to Goodwill.
1 Like
If Mozilla wants to endorse this plugin, they might insist it be free software. That would be in accordance with the values that we meet in about:rights, among other places.
But, to be specifif: I’ll be compelled by the fact that a million content providers, governments etc. may now support this plugin and point to Mozilla’s endorsement and support of this plugin as an indication, taken together with Mozilla’s well-known position as the free software and Open Internet project (and not just a browser project) to prove that their use of DRM is OK and doesn’t pose any ethical problems.
In other words, Mozilla are allowing their values to be taken hostage and used to whitewash a million content providers’ rough ride over their users’ rights.
I’ll be compelled by the fact that a million content providers, governments…
No, you’re not. You still have the choice to not consume this content.
1 Like
Not necessarily. In Denmark, e.g., you’re legally obliged to connect to authorities using NemID, driven by a proprietary Java applet that must have read/write acces to all your user’s files. Yes, a real government Trojan.
I don’t have the option not to use it, but I’ve been campaigning to kill it. Meanwhile, I do have the option to protect my security by only running it in VirtualBox.
I must say I’m not heartbroken about this. I’m angry about it! I guess this decision must be in the running for the most stupid decision of 2014 award. Since when does hollywood, movies, big business et al now suddenly become more important than users’ freedoms?
I know this isn’t connected per se, but I’m tempted at this point to think of two things. Number one, mozilla receives a lot of money from google. Number two take note of the new Firefox OS which runs on 'phones - which supports advertising out of the box and you’ll loose your warranty if you root your 'phone. How nice of mozilla 
. Or is google pulling the strings behind closed doors? I’m sorry, but I have no trust of google these days - it’s one of my projects for the year to bin anything google-related or as much as possible.
Whichever way either it almost sounds like it is time to fork it or bin it. Already on the look for alternative browsers.
1 Like
From EFF Deeplinks:
It’s clear from the tone of Gal and Baker’s comments, and our own
discussions with Mozilla, that you’ll find no technologist there who is
happy with this step. The fact that Mozilla, in opposition to its
mission, had to prepare and design this feature in secret without being
able to consult the developers and users who make up its community is an
indication of how much of a contradiction DRM is in a pro-user
open-source browser.
Unchecked, that contradiction is only going to grow. Mozilla’s DRM code, imported from Adobe
as a closed-source binary, will sit in a cordoned sandbox,
simultaneously Mozilla’s responsibility but beyond its control. Mozilla
will be responsible for updates to the DRM blackbox, which means users
will have to navigate browser updates that will either fix security bugs
or strip features from their video watching. Mozillians have already
been warned of the danger of talking too much about how DRM works (and
doesn’t work), lest they trigger the provisions in the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that forbid “trafficking” in
circumvention knowledge.
So, Mozilla basically betrayed its own values, betrayed its own users and its own developers and embraced the concept of “forbidden knowledge”. So much for the Internet as an open platform, right?
[quote=“heeveel, post:72, topic:31332”]
In fact, I don’t listen to audio or view video I can’t download, own, and retain under my control. That already means I go for Creative Commons and public domain material whenever I can. If I really want copyright material, I buy it on CDs and DVDs, which I can own.[/quote]
And you only own those DVDs because the DVD consortium fucked up the DRM terribly and made it trivial to defeat. Sony didn’t repeat that mistake with Blu-Ray.
1 Like
That’s at least three of us. I rent DVDs (not Blu-Ray) from Amazon, haven’t watched broadcast TV for at least five years, and my Nokia 1100 is approaching its tenth birthday. Streaming is an utter irrelevance to me.
1 Like
Do you think you’re an example of the norm for the over 150 million people using Firefox?
1 Like
