DRM, CDM, EME and Mozilla

30 replies [Last post]
__martin__
Offline
Joined: 12/25/2012

No comment. Read on your own: http://andreasgal.com/2014/05/14/eme/

Legimet
Offline
Joined: 12/10/2013

DRM, along with the automatic downloading of proprietary software! I never thought this would happen in Firefox.

I hope it's easy to remove it for Abrowser.

Mozilla is starting to care too much about market share and less about freedom.

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

Legimet said:
> I hope it's easy to remove it for Abrowser.

Of course it will be. It's just a proprietary component, no different in that respect from proprietary blobs.

What I'm concerned about is not how this will affect Abrowser, but rather how it will affect people's perception of the digital restriction system. Firefox, for better or worse, is widely known as the "open source" web browser. It supporting this digital restriction system will legitimize it in many people's eyes, or even render it invisible.

trisq

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 09/03/2013

1.) How much will Thunderbird be affected? Isn't there quite a bit of overlap with Firefox? Especially plug ins.

2.) Not sure this is related, but...In the past couple of weeks I've started to get notices from PayPal and Youtube and other websites at the top of the browser window saying that they notice I am blocking flash. They give an option for me to "allow" or "never on this website" and even though I check "never", it continues to ask again and again with each log in. Not sure if the browser triggers that or the website. And which of them will not listen to my choice when I say "never"?

Sadly, trying to browse without javascript, cookies, and flash is becoming a full time job clicking all the buttons needed to view most sites.

andrew
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2012

> No comment. Read on your own: http://andreasgal.com/2014/05/14/eme/

Extremely disappointing to read this. An endorsement of proprietary
software in a free program is bad enough, but to actively play a part in
proliferating proprietary software is alarming.

The article writes:
> We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME
> specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other
> browsers to watch content restricted by DRM.

In other words, they use popularity as an excuse to ignore their own
principles.

Now can we organise a Mozilla protest for all the right reasons?

Andrew.

jxself
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2010

The article writes:
> We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME
> specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other
> browsers to watch content restricted by DRM.

In other words, they use popularity as an excuse to ignore their own
principles.

--------
And it was a pretty poort argument, as I understand it. Reference Cory Doctorow's "Firefox's adoption of DRM breaks my heart": http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow

In it, he talks about the claim of people switching away from Firefox. The response from Mozilla was that because videos are large files which as he says is a bad argument to use as an indicator that, from a file's size, they can conclude people will leave Firefox.

"I am sceptical about this claim. I don't doubt that it’s sincerely made, but I found the case for it weak. When I pressed Gal for evidence that without Netflix Firefox users would switch away, he cited the huge volume of internet traffic generated by Netflix streams.

There's no question that Netflix video and other video streams account for an appreciable slice of the internet’s overall traffic. But video streams are also the bulkiest files to transfer. That video streams use a lot of bytes isn't a surprise.

When a charitable nonprofit like Mozilla makes a shift as substantial as this one – installing closed-source software designed to treat computer users as untrusted adversaries – you’d expect there to be a data-driven research story behind it, meticulously documenting the proposition that without DRM irrelevance is inevitable. The large number of bytes being shifted by Netflix is a poor proxy for that detailed picture."

> Now can we organise a Mozilla protest for all the right reasons?

Yes - Let's!

andrew
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2012
jxself
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2010

And Bradley Kuhn has a reply to Mozilla's blog post:
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/05/14/to-serve-users.html

t3g
t3g
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2011

Maybe the Chromium browser should be forked/modified to remove any questionable bits and included into the repos. What was wrong with it besides unknown licensing?

andrew
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2012

> Maybe the Chromium browser should be forked/modified to remove any
> questionable bits and included into the repos. What was wrong with it
> besides unknown licensing?

Apparently Chromium already has EME support so that does not make it any
better than Firefox in this regard. Chromium also has questionable
privacy-related defaults, but these can presumably be changed fairly easily.

Andrew.

t3g
t3g
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2011

Firefox is more restrictive than Chromium because you have to rename it and rip out all the artwork since the Mozilla Corporation won't allow you to use the Firefox name.

With Chromium, you can modify it all you want (like turning off or disabling the Google features) and still use the name Chromium with the same artwork.

As for EME, isn't it an accepted web standard now by the W3C? I understand the concept of software without restrictions, but does it really matter with video? It is meant to consumed and not modified as it is copyrighted material. They are just making sure the transfer of copyrighted material stays in the control of the creator.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 07/24/2010

EME being in the standard does not make it good.

Preventing somebody from using the video as she wishes (e.g., forcing her to watch ads, preventing her from saving the downloaded file, imposing a limit on the number of times the video is watched, etc.) clearly goes against freedom 0, the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

DRMs are incompatible with free software. There is no such a thing as a free DRM. And, indeed, Firefox will download a blob to impose usage restrictions. From Adobe, probably in the top-3 companies against freedom (with Microsoft and Apple).

Legimet
Offline
Joined: 12/10/2013

It's not in the standard yet. But even if W3C rejects it, companies like Netflix have already started to use it :(

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

Netflix using EME is not a significant problem. They were already using digital restriction mechanisms before, and it's no surprise that they continue to do so. The big problem is this digital restriction mechanism being standardized, and the only major free/libre browser going on and accepting it, because that makes the problem of digital restriction mechanisms worse.

It's like Flash Player all over again, only this time it could be much worse and much more difficult to recover from.

Legimet
Offline
Joined: 12/10/2013

But Netflix will now seem more "open" because they're using a "standardized" DRM, and because all of the major browsers support it.

Chris

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 04/23/2011

You guys were fast... hmm actually I think you posted it before the FSF release. Totally missed if from the title till after I started a new thread. Ohh well.

In any event send an email to complain... to:

agal [at] mozilla [dot] com

And... another freedom issue, not free software specific, but if you haven't signed the FCC campaign to fix internet access in the United States, do it, do it now, its your very last chance:

http://www.stoptheslowlane.com/?t=dXNlcmlkPTUxNzA2NTgyLGVtYWlsaWQ9ODU1MQ==/

lembas
Offline
Joined: 05/13/2010

Wow, bad day for reason and freedom. Shame on Mozilla for abandoning its own charter!

Will write an email and hang my head low...

Maybe a year ago I was shocked and disgusted to see a Facebook link on the front page of Mozilla.org. I opened a bug urging them to remove it which promptly got WONTFIX'd. A harbinger of this decision surely...

VertPingouin
Offline
Joined: 03/08/2014

I think there'll be no turning back after this. I deeply hope I'm mistaken.

So disappointed, for us it's just something to remove from abrowser, but for free software cause and everyone which is not concerned about it, it's a serious harm.

davidnotcoulthard (not verified)
davidnotcoulthard

One likes to believe in the freedom of music, but glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

Waiting for the winds of change to sweep the clouds away, waiting for someone to come and turn the world around, instead of doing it your/themselves......

jamathis

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 04/25/2013

This is extremely disappointing and goes against what Mozilla claims to stand for. Instead of standing up to bullies like Adobe, they have now become one all for the sake of popularity.

arielenter

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 08/25/2010

I sent the following email to Mozila, I'm not sure if I chose the best words for it, but this is how it came out:

"As one of your users I'll like to speak up and say that I'm against DRM,
and I feel very disappointed to hear your recently decision to partner
with adobe to use DRM on your browser :(

Please consider reading the following article to understand my stand:

https://u.fsf.org/xk

I hope you reverse this decision soon."

davidnotcoulthard (not verified)
davidnotcoulthard

Forgive me for asking what I'm about to ask but might it have something to do with Mozilla's revenue flow?

jxself
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2010

> Forgive me for asking what I'm about to ask but might it have something to do > with Mozilla's revenue flow?

Maybe. To quote from Bradley, "Of course, Mozilla Foundation is actually a thin non-profit shell wrapped around a much larger entity called the Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit company. I have always been dubious about this structure, and actions like this that make it obvious that "Mozilla" is focused on being a for-profit company, competing with other for-profit companies, rather than a charity serving the public..." [0]

So we must always remember that there is a for-profit company involved here, seemingly acting like for-profit companies do.

[0] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/05/14/to-serve-users.html

Chris

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 04/23/2011

Isn't it the other way around. Something along the lines of Mozilla (a non-profit) owning a for-profit corporation? Where the goal of the for-profit is to raise money through business activities for the non-profit?

Legimet
Offline
Joined: 12/10/2013

According to wikipedia,
"Mozilla Corporation (abbreviated MoCo) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation"
So I guess you're right.

jxself
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2010

Sounds like you're describing exactly what Bradley described, so I'm not sure what you're trying to point out...

Chris

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 04/23/2011

I think was reading it wrong the first time. Thought you were saying it was a for-profit corporation with a non-profit subsidiary.

starchild
Offline
Joined: 09/14/2011

The point is that the for-profit is running the show (in practice).

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 07/24/2010
Chris

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 04/23/2011

Signed it!

kokomo_joe

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 07/16/2011

Why not just create another side project that's web based and includes this "sandbox" idea? An app designed from the ground up for viewing this crap. ...Or a browser extension.

That way the browser itself could remain committed to it's principles and anyone that wants to can use the non-free junk can do so without affecting anyone else.

I agree with Chris that we need to have at least one major browser without this nonsense. That way websites will feel pressure not to put ALL of their video (DRM or not) into this rat hole.

I'm glad I use ABrowser.