Firefox gets closed-source DRM

Posted May 15, 2014 12:29 UTC (Thu) by gerv (guest, #3376)
In reply to: Firefox gets closed-source DRM by jra
Parent article: Firefox gets closed-source DRM

If our only goal was market share, why did we try very hard for years to avoid implementing H.264? Why have we sweated out a deal with Adobe which includes downstream support, Linux support and privacy protection when (I suspect) we could have implemented EME much easier and earlier if we didn't bother about those things?

We still believe that openness, innovation, and opportunity are key to the continued health of the Internet. You are confusing doing something with liking it. No-one at Mozilla is celebrating today, and Mozilla remains opposed to DRM - Mitchell's and Andreas' blog post rehearsed, for the Nth time, why it's not good for users. We had two bad options; we think this one is less bad than the other one.

Firefox gets closed-source DRM

Posted May 15, 2014 16:50 UTC (Thu) by lsl (subscriber, #86508) [Link] (1 responses)

> Why have we sweated out a deal with Adobe which includes downstream support, Linux support and privacy protection when (I suspect) we could have implemented EME much easier and earlier if we didn't bother about those things?

Is Linux really fully supported? AFAIK the existing Adobe DRM implementation doesn't give the same "robustness guarantees" on all platforms. They claim a higher degree of "robustness" for the Windows variant, which IIRC led Amazon (when it still had a Flash-based alternative to Silverlight) to not offer high-definition content to Linux users.

But Andreas' blog said the CDM isn't able to gather any information about its host system, so this stuff can't possibly be a problem, right?

Firefox gets closed-source DRM

Posted May 15, 2014 17:25 UTC (Thu) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]

They can't talk about it, or else they'll be encouraging trafficking.

The effect of this on the corporate culture will be profound.

As Alexander Pope wrote:

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Firefox gets closed-source DRM

Posted May 16, 2014 8:00 UTC (Fri) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link] (3 responses)

> If our only goal was market share, why did we try very hard for years to
> avoid implementing H.264? Why have we sweated out a deal with Adobe which
> includes downstream support, Linux support and privacy protection when (I
> suspect) we could have implemented EME much easier and earlier if we
> didn't bother about those things?

Yeah, remember when we were *cool*. Yeah, yeah, cool man... We used to be so *cool* didn't we... Remember that ?

But that was then Gervase, this is now.

Now you have demonstrated you have no principle you're not willing to abandon in the name of popularity. None. Doesn't matter what you did in the past. The point of principles is that they are immutable. That's why they are your *principles*.

A blank, looking for validation and approval. Nothing more than that. It's sad really. Reminds me a little of Tony Blair (if you'll forgive the digression in UK politics, as I know both you and I relate to that :-). Tony used to be cool once too. Now look at him. Can't go into a restaurant now without the waiters trying a citizens arrest as a war criminal.

Is that the legacy you want for Mozilla ? Is that the organization you want to give your talents to ? Do you think that's a good use of your time ?

If you want to be an apologist for DRM, I'm pretty sure Netflix would pay you a *lot* better than Mozilla. Or any other proprietary software company.

You've already shown popularity is #1 for you. How about going to work where you can be *really* popular ! You won't have to pretend you have any principles there, life will be so much easier.

Firefox gets closed-source DRM

Posted May 16, 2014 8:25 UTC (Fri) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link] (2 responses)

I don't accept the idea that one is not permitted to have principles if one doesn't win every battle one fights.

Your accusation is simply false. In this particular case (which is the second significant one I know of, the first being H.264) we have had to do something we would rather not do, to avoid an even worse outcome.

Let's say we took your path, and in 3 years time, Firefox on the desktop had a market share of less than 5%, and our influence on the course of the web was negligible. Would you still be there on our backs, deploying the whip and saying "for goodness sake, Mozilla - you seem to be violating your principles all over the place these days; why are you letting these guys push you around"?

The reason we win quite a lot is because we have a decent market share. It's not big enough to win every battle. The idea that we should throw that away in a glorious Charge of the Light Brigade the first time we lose is foolish.

Firefox gets closed-source DRM

Posted May 16, 2014 12:57 UTC (Fri) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link] (1 responses)

You can lose battles and still have principles.

What you can't do is violate your principles and claim you're only doing so to keep them clean for next time, when you promise, *truly* promise that next time will be different. We won't cave into pressure next time, really we won't. I know we did this time, but that was *different* you see, it was because we *had* to..

It's sad, just sad. Pathetic and sad. You won't even admit to yourself that implementing DRM is a violation of principles. Remember this ?

"We see DRM in general as profoundly hostile to all three of: users, open source software, and browser vendors who aren’t also DRM vendors.", or now he's gone are you planning to revise history on that ?

The industry that you claim "forced you into this" is laughing at you. "We need to keep our influence for next time" is a sick joke. You don't seem to understand - you don't have any influence left. You've shown you'll shred your morals like a cheap suit if anyone threatens you in any way. What need does anyone have to listen to what you say ? What will you do if they don't ? Capitulate again ?

You have no principles left, only a ferocious desire for market share. Be honest about it, at least to yourself. You can play the PR man out there on the web, but look in the mirror and think, really think, about what you've become, and what you're doing.

You're an apologist for DRM. Is that what you thought you'd be when you were growing up ? Is that what all that education was for ? To learn how to convince people that something you know in your heart is hostile to openness, freedom and decency isn't so bad because it's *you* that's doing it to them ?

What is Firefox and Mozilla for ? Why does it exist ?

Come back to me when you have a better answer than "to be popular".

Firefox gets closed-source DRM

Posted May 16, 2014 13:20 UTC (Fri) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link]

> "We see DRM in general as profoundly hostile to all three of: users, open
> source software, and browser vendors who aren’t also DRM vendors.", or
> now he's gone are you planning to revise history on that?

No, we still agree with that. Why are we doing this? Because we had two bad choices, and this one is least bad. Brendan was involved in our strategy to work out what to do about DRM from the very beginning and, if you check his Twitter stream, you'll see that he agreed that this was necessary.

I'm not an apologist for DRM. An apologist for DRM would be someone saying that DRM is a good thing. I'm not saying that. I don't use Netflix or similar services, because I'm not interested in most of the content they offer. I may well never use the Adobe CDM. But I don't fool myself into thinking I'm typical.