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

Characterizing an opinion that’s different from your own as “histrionics” is a form of ad hominem. You’re not actually making an argument by calling something “histrionics”, you’re just dismissing an opinion because it’s different from yours.

Also, “you can always go get an old outdated open source browser that isn’t one of the four web designers actually pay attention to ensuring that you have a shitty, buggy web browsing experience” isn’t much of an argument either.


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.

Well, if that’s true, since they’re both influential, sounds like we can do both considering how little time it takes to shoot Mozilla a quick email asking them to reconsider. Personally, I think Mozilla would appreciate grassroots, individual emails on top of more organized block efforts. And, I’m thankful that people take time out of their day to do either or both.

There is more incentive to respond to a public group of people than private individuals, generally.

That’s why I donate to the EFF, etc. on top of sending my own personal emails. :smiley:

How about we set up a petition thread on this BBS with supportive posts that can be collected after a certain date, copied and sent to Mozilla?


Sending my email now.


That, and Firefox’s resulting loss of market share, is probably one of the things they’re citing to try to justify this.

There’s a qualitative difference between allowing an open-but-patented file format to play when there’s a decoder present, versus adding Adobe closed patented secret DRM code to your software. Firefox’s MPEG-4 support benefited users. Adding proprietary malware is actively anti-user.

1 Like

I took prompt action: Preferences > Advanced > Updates > Never.

I got prompt results. Next time I reopened it, it had updated and was offering to show me all the wonderful, glittering ways in which it was now so much better.


1 Like

If we don’t put DRM; "The blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans will be on your hands if you try to stop this. It’s time for you to decide what side you’re really on.’”

1 Like

I’ve been a long time user of several browsers, from Netscape to Chrome and latest Safari, PC/Mac/Linux (I still miss you my dear Camino). I wouldn’t characterize other people’s comments as histrionics but I do think they are biased. Mozilla is a non-profit but they still need to generate income and more importantly, revenue. They do that by taking donations and through search engine deals. The $500 or whatever you donate to them must be appreciated but it’s chump change compared to what is generated through Google Search. And that’s what’s at risk by not implementing support for DRM’d HTML5 video. The browser market has been sliding towards Chrome for several years because of streaming video support and that hurts Mozilla’s revenue because more people will use Chrome’s Google Search instead of Firefox’s. It’s a horrible reality. And you can’t also blame the platforms, be it Apple, Google or Netflix. The ones to blame are the media conglomerates that license their catalogs. There wouldn’t be an electronic media industry without content and that comes with contract clauses dictating how to protect such content. And those are dictated by Sony, WB, Disney, etc. Do you really think Apple wouldn’t like to give you the content directly and on their terms instead of having to comply to the rights holder’s whims? They gave a huge blow to the music industry in the late 00s by getting rid of DRM, but now the video industry will do all they can to make sure they won’t lose control.


Dear Netflix: I demand that you make streaming movies available DRM free to support my open source browser.

Gee, I wonder why this approach didn’t work in the real world? Netflix hasn’t stuck with a goddamn Silverlight player because they love the technology that much, it’s written into the numerous contracts they have with rights owners for their streaming content. Rights owners that are already uncomfortable with Netflix and really wish people would just go back to paying $6 per movie on PPV, but in the kinds of numbers Netflix is seeing.


Re-install ver 28 from here, and once you’ve done that, if you want it to be secure, run it through sandboxie.

1 Like

Thanks,but I end up with a .mar file, and my system doesn’t have any idea what to do with it. Nor do I.

“Histrionics” addresses neither the facts nor the logic of the debate. Aside from being slathered in weaksauce because of the inherent sexism implied by the word, it’s just a common fallacy used in place of of verifiable facts and agreeable logic, and used to distract and change the subject; universally indicates that intelligent discussion with the user of the word has come to a conclusion.


Are you arguing with someone?

From my end on windows, that’s a straight-up .exe installer. Have a Google, you’ll find it.

More with the concept that all we have to do is ask and services will adopt DRM free streaming on their own. Like they wanted the hassle of DRM in the first place.

People are acting like “OMG, Firefox caved and now we’re going to have DRM ON THE WEB!!!”, but that ship sailed years ago, before there even was a web, when the rules for broadcasting media were being written. The battle was lost long before it even started. As long as media companies are under no compulsory licensing requirement and are allowed to set the terms for streaming services, we are going to have DRM. They have way too much power now, and there’s no compelling reason for them to give up any control–definitely not for better user experience.

Why not simply use a browser that doesn’t provide EME or a CDM implementation and also ensure that you do not use any of the OTT and VOD platforms that provide premium (i.e. content provider owned) content that they wish to monetise? You don’t have to watch video content online if you don’t want. Firefox recognise this is the direction that the video market is going so they are supporting it. Content providers mandate that DRM is required to view their content and if you don’t like it then don’t join in. This is really not that complicated. The whole DRM-is-bad argument is bullshit, if you want something that someone is wanting to sell then accept the conditions that they are putting on that, if you don’t want to accept the conditions then don’t buy it. This really is that simple. Saying something is bad and evil does not make it so just because you do not like it.

Sorry, but no. The notion that the open web is dead because Firefox added a sandbox for Adobe so that content providers can copy-protect audio and video, or that a Guardian writer is nursing a broken heart over the issue…c’mon. It’s so over-the-top emotional. No reasonable person got their heart broke over this.

I see that as a separate issue from how much it sucks that DRM is being built into HTML, though.

Here’s the thing, though: as much as I think it sucks, some people pooh-pooh the idea of content providers pulling their content off the web entirely. I guess people aren’t aware of these things:

Not only are they capable of circumventing the open Web, they already are and are growing in popularity as the popularity of the much more open landscape of desktops and laptops drops like a stone. No longer will you open a browser to go to the Web; you’ll grab your iPad. Save that streaming video? Oh, please, like you’re going to take up the storage space. Your Netflix video is in the cloud! The cloud is great! Only old people have a problem with this! And content providers will be able to put up…whatever Apple deems worthy of their devices. I’m sure they’d be delighted to have the Web die, as it would mean they could drop Safari and prevent content providers from building HTML5 apps that allow them to circumvent the App Store issue (which is what Playboy did.)

And for some reason Apple gets a free pass among the BoingBoing crowd. I don’t get it.

That attitude is starting to hit Google, too; they pulled several Reddit apps a while back because they apparently have inadequate controls to prevent NSFW content. Meanwhile, you can find tons of very obviously porn apps in the Play Store. And of course, you can look at whatever you want in Chrome.

And just try playing flagged Youtube videos on your Chromecast.

If you think, in 2014, that walled garden mobile devices replacing more open PCs isn’t a big deal, well, at least 34% of Web traffic comes from mobile.

I truly, honestly see DRM for media files as the lesser of two evils. I also don’t see this ultimately working out well for either producers or consumers.

I predict that when companies start rolling these things out, they’ll be defeated pretty quickly. And if they’re not, companies might reconsider when they start seeing the extra overhead from running DRM on their end.

1 Like

Not arguing with the central point of your post at all, but I think you are pretty optimistic here. DRM is not about costs, it is about vendetta. If rich heads of huge companies could lose their jobs merely because their decisions led their companies to ruin, then what are all those bank presidents still doing with their jobs? Software companies have been trying to make unbreakable copy protection for decades now and they haven’t learned yet. I doubt they will learn any time soon.


1 Like

Where was this promise?

I’m sure he’ll be swayed by your well reasoned argument countering the points Andreas made in his long blog post on this topic.