Mozilla CAN change the industry: by adding DRM, they change it for the worse


1 Like

This all really sucks.
Sorry, just got to vent.

1 Like

Mozilla’s DRM code, imported from Adobe

That alone should be enough to scare the pants off you.

Adobe Systems, where security was never a serious consideration.

At Adobe systems we do things on a grand scale. In 2013 alone we allowed 192.9 million user accounts to be compromised. No one else has such a commitment to handing out your data.


Well, I switched to firefox specifically because of their promise not to implement this. Not sure what to do now.


This makes zero sense. What exactly is the leverage that media companies have over a non-profit browser maker? Is Mozilla just worried that people won’t use browsers anymore if they can’t watch Netflix in them? We don’t need to watch Netflix in a browser, the 'net is still something different from the web, last time I checked, they can transmit videos in their preferred, protected format all they want, just have users download a desktop software (app, I guess is how you say it now) and get videos through that. Why screw with browsers? It almost seems like it’s just out of spite, as most casual users don’t even use browsers for media consumption any more. If the soothsayers of the future of connected entertainment are correct, apps are the future. Baking DRM into HTML seems like demanding that all flour come with eggs, sugar and salt in it, because you might make cookies with it, even though most people just buy them frozen.

So ironic that Netflix is the powerhouse ally on Net Nutrality, but such a foe on the actual freedom of the web.



FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


Is there a way that we can ALL get a message to FF that we will discontinue using it? What’s the point? If they are going the way of other browsers, then they might as well cease to exist. Can’t we tell them that collectively through BB?

1 Like

From the article you linked:

More importantly, popularity is not an end in itself. This is especially true for the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit with an ethical mission. In the past, Mozilla has distinguished itself and achieved success by protecting the freedom of its users and explaining the importance of that freedom

Exactly. So having a user base got to their heads? If the user base doesn’t care about an issue as fundamental as baked-in DRM, are a they really a Mozilla user base? I’m not trying to “No True Scotsman” here, but what’s the point of being Mozilla if you aren’t anymore? I’d rather have “Wouldn’t implement DRM” on my headstone than have “Teamed up with Adobe to implement in-browser DRM!” in my lifetime achievement award…


Well, I’m sure it doesn’t matter, but I just tweeted my unhappiness at them.

This, combined with their recent gutting of customization options and apparent intent to continue gutting customization options in an attempt to make their browser look just like Chrome…

I have to ask myself, why am I still using this browser again? If the practical benefits are being tossed, and the ideological benefits are being tossed…

I guess I can still, at least, get rid of the 'x’s in non-selected tabs, and thus avoid accidental tab closures while trying to switch.

I… I guess that’s all that left?

Well, crap.

1 Like

There’s an awfully high level of histrionics over what seems to be, in the end, a plugin

Does anyone have any actual technical data showing how this is different than watching Netflix through the Silverlight plugin?


Well, I’m sure it doesn’t matter, but I just tweeted my unhappiness at them.

It matters and thank you. :slight_smile: Collective actions are just a collection of individuals that all do their part. The more people let Mozilla know they think this is a mistake, the more likely they are to rethink it.

1 Like

Does anyone have any actual technical data showing how this is different than watching Netflix through the Silverlight plugin?

This isn’t a technical issue for those who oppose this move by Mozilla. If you read the multiple statements linked by boing boing in several posts, they explain this in detail.

While I don’t fully agree with some of their points, I can at least respect their point of view that this is clearly a move that the Mozilla Foundation is doing against its own, stated principles.

There’s an awfully high level of histrionics over what seems to be, in the end, a plugin…

In the end, it’s really about principles for those who are against acceptance of this form of DRM in a self-professed open platform. And calling people melodramatic for standing up for their principles seems overly dismissive in my opinion.

I don’t necessarily agree with everyone who is against Mozilla’s decision, but I also don’t find the insulting need to claim they are being histrionic for standing against DRM and standing for principles.


If we don’t step it up quick, we are fucked. This is us losing, y’all. This is our moment in the sun over.

If there was ever a poster child for how clever programmers and enthusiastic web campaigns could free the internet, it was Firefox in 2004.

A decade later, Firefox has become a clear sign that free software and blog hype doesn’t cut it anymore. This is real politics now, and we need real resistance. It’s not time to call your congressperson or install Linux on your dad’s PC. It’s time to fill the streets and cause a fuss. It’s time to put something that matters on the line, because the internet matters.

1 Like

Thank you!

Spurred me to send the email.
Mozilla CTO:
Subject: Oppose DRM - Don’t be dicks!
Body: +1
This reply took 5X’s as much effort…


But sliding past the facts and logic in order to attack your opponents character is the American Way. How else would we know our betters if not for their condescending tone?! :open_mouth:


Quit acting like sheeple and follow me!!!

1 Like

Exactly. Register a compliant. They add up.

Do not be the person who complains and then ‘adds’ to their point by going on and on about how much better Mozilla deserves from itself and what a let down they would be to the elders of the internet and blahdebladeblah. Do that on your blog, right?

I think it’s warranted; if there’s one thing I can count on in these instances, it’s to be told, “you need to be angry, no time to explain!”


“It’s official: the last holdout for the open web has fallen.”

I’m sorry, but that’s histrionics.

I know that nobody uses *n?x (unless you count OS X) but hell, you can legally download Ubuntu or Kubuntu for free. You can also choose to run one of these EME browsers, or not. But if you’re screaming from the heavens that the open Web is dead, and you feel like you’re stuck because IE, Opera, Chrome, and Firefox all support DRM, uh, well, the thing is…I have very little sympathy.

Now, look, I know the browsers I pointed out are both WebKit, which has EME integrated. All I can say is this: if only the source were available…and if only there were a repository for pre-Apple and pre-Google WebKit…

Oh, look, Konqueror, with KHTML, the precursor to WebKit.

And for history’s sake, here’s what Brendan Eich said about it; basically, they were strongly against incorporating DRM into HTML, but if the W3C got enough support for it, they would grudgingly do so for the sake of retaining their userbase. And honestly, the userbase…from helping fellow Ubuntu users, when an Ubuntu user tries to watch an MP4 stream in Firefox, and it doesn’t work, rather than leave enlightened about the situation and demand that the content provider switch to WebM, they go install Chrome.

1 Like

While that is true, collective action under a coalition is more influential than individuals separately stating their plea, even if the numbers add up the same. Dr Awkward posted an interesting study on influence in policy, within the political realm. I understand that FF is not the government, but it stands to reason that the same ‘block’ of like-minded force would have a greater impact. That was the reason I suggested this through BB, since it is a blog known to have techie fans. There is more incentive to respond to a public group of people than private individuals, generally.