No and a thousand times no. Lately I have been touching my chins a bit with the news surrounding Mozilla and the way in which users or some websites spread them. Sometimes we want to be so puritanical that we are ridiculous. But we go in parts.
What the heck is DRM?
Let's turn to the always useful Wikipedia:
Digital rights management (sometimes also written digital rights management) or DRM (digital rights management) is a generic term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and copyright holders to limit the use of digital media or devices. It is also used to refer to the restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. DRM overlaps, to some extent, with software copy protection, although the term DRM is generally applied to creative media (music, movies, etc.).
DRM has been and is being used by content provider companies such as Sony, Microsoft, Valve and the BBC. Apple Inc. renounced the use of DRM in songs offered through its iTunes portal, 1 which accounts for 80% of online music sales.
How does DRM affect me as a GNU / Linux user?
In nothing. Most of us are adults, and we know what type of content we consume, how we consume it and where we consume it. The problem is that sites like Netflix, Amazon Video, etc ... they force us to use DRM in order to see the content they offer.
Let's be honest, compared to those of us who defend and love the Free software, Open Source and others, the rest of the people only want to consume content. They care little if the video, the series, the soap opera has DRM or not, they simply want to open a page, click on the Play and see what they want. It's that simple and Mozilla knows it.
The fact that some of us use "freeware" applications, or proprietary drivers, because we need them for certain things, does not mean that for this reason we let the rest of the Open Software, beautiful and pure, be used. Well, the same with DRM. Point.
Also, as far as I understand the DRM module will not be included in the Firefox installer, but rather the functionality is added as a plugin or something like that. That is, will be completely optional, and the user will have to download "something" to implement this functionality. Firefox code will remain completely open.
What if it cannot happen is that Mozilla says: No, we will go against the world !!! and a few whiners come out like when the homophobic CEO issue to boycott them. Making that decision (to implement DRM support) has been difficult, but in my humble opinion, it was the right one. It is adapt, evolve or die.
Mozilla's strategy (what I understood)
Respecting freedom and providing access to the Web has always been one of Mozilla's priorities. Therefore, not allowing us to see content under DRM in Firefox goes against its principles, as they would be limiting us. For them they have reached an alliance with Adobe, who will provide the Content Decryption Module (CDM).
As I was saying, Firefox does not load this module (Adobe CDM) directly. What it does is use a litter box (sandbox or sandbox) open source. This means that Adobe CDM will not have access to the user's hard drive or the network. Instead, the sandbox will provide the CDM only as a communication mechanism with Firefox to receive encrypted data and view the results.
Traditionally, to implement DRM systems, identifying information about the user's device is collected, through a term called fingerprinting and they refuse to play the content if the content or CDM is moved to a different device.
Instead, in the sandbox, Firefox prohibits the CDM from doing fingerprinting on the user's device. Instead, the CDM asks the sandbox that provides a unique identifier per device. This unique security identifier generated by the CDM allows content to be linked to a single device as required by the content industry, but does so without revealing additional information about the user or the user's device.
Additionally, it varies this unique identifier per site (each site presents a different device identifier) to make it more difficult to track users across sites with this identifier. You can see all this more detailed technical explanation (and surely better explained than my modest correction) in this link.
Do not share what you smoke
Therefore, before running out of Mozilla because some say they will add advertising in the browser (which is not true), or because it includes support for DRM, read and find out first. Mozilla has been and will continue to be one of the Companies that has most respected its users and that is not going to change, at least not in the near future.
this with Brendan did not happen xD hahahajajjaj
xDD but no way
Party pro gay, party.
XDD But what do you say?
Because of the departure of the former leader of the Mozilla Foundation.
«Caudillo» ... why not call the others sandy then?
It must be an anti-gay measure: laughs
XD
In fact, it already happened, precisely with him, it is not a new or exclusive issue for Mozilla, it comes from the W3C.
The aforementioned had already talked about the implementation of DRM and H.264.
And if we all do not agree and put the hashtag #FirefoxNoDRM #MozzilaNoDRM on twitter + g facebook diaspora identica etc etc. Maybe if it becomes a trending topic, the mozilla people will put the batteries and do not implement it
As soon as I read the title I thought:
DRM in Mozilla Firefox Is the world going to end? NO, everyone to a fork without DRM. But as you well say, you have to inform yourself and analyze things first ...
Regards!
The post is very informative, and I totally agree. The way Mozilla is going to implement it seems like a way that makes everyone happy.
If I remember correctly, Mozilla already wanted to go against the world on the issue of H.264 format
The H.264 thing was true, since the problem was with the freeware license that had this format.
Also, I quote a comment of the post that cites the article Which is quite smart to face the solution against browsers that do not support DRM by default (like Chromium):
Long live proprietary software and DRM.
If the inclusion of DRM bothers so much, then you have to stop using Flash, drivers, Chrome, Ubuntu, etc, etc.
Another minor tantrum.
No, I do not share it there.
If it could to live (note the emphasis on if it could) with free software, if the model had been free from the beginning (which in fact, at the dawn of investigative and civil informatics it was), then no one would need anything proprietary.
Don't confuse use of necessity with direct support, David.
I correct: if you could live ONLY with free software ...
on your own server, with games of chance and sluts !!!
You say it as if there was no one in the world willing not to use flash, proprietary drivers, chrome and ubuntu.
1. I don't use flash. To watch videos on youtube I have a pretty cool plugin in firefox that passes it to html5. And in case you want full flash, I can already manage with gnash (although I admit that it is something experimental)
2. My drivers are free. Down proprietary drivers nvidia, broadcom wireless, etc
3. I don't use chrome, I use firefox, and in the future rest assured that I will not install DRM
4. I use debian, not ubuntu
In short, that you can live without proprietary software, although of course, people go to the comfortable thing because their nose-what-bullshit-graphics works automatically without installing anything, well ...
Well, greetings 🙂
Richard Stallman is you?
WIN
My computer is a tool, my card was worth money and I do not intend to waste it with the Noveau drivers, which do not give me the results I am looking for ... Can you live? Yes. Can you get full, full and extensive use of all your hardware? Ahm, only if… uh no… I mean that.
You built your computer yourself. Do not lie to me.
No balls, but still I will not have spent all the money that I spent at the time to waste it ... xD
I answered desikoder
Be more specific, fuck xD
I do support you, it is true what you mention 🙂
On the side of those who are staunch Netflix fans (like me), this was the last step for Netflix to dare to seriously implement their browser in HTML5.
On the side of DRM haters (like Stallman), this bodes ill (basically because the MPAA imposed DRM implementation in HTML5 from the beginning). Normally, some will cry out to heaven because that means a felony towards your philosophyBut if we look at how it implements HTML5 DRM in Firefox, we realize that it actually does take user privacy into account.
Many gritty will choose to replace by Iceweasel (it is a rebranding of Debian's Firefox, but its only differences are that it has telemetry disabled, the deletion of the aforementioned function tab, the browser updates through the "about" window and the user agent hinders certain plugins), the GNU IceCat (Cain's will pass it on with said browser, since it only supports certain ECMAscript rules approved by the FSF, it will not allow the installation of Flash Player, Java or Pipelight, and by default it does not accept cookies), or use Lynx (the best alternative in case you do without the graphical interface).
For my part, I continue to promote the Firefox ESR for the sandy and / or liberated.
Not to mention that Icecat only relies on ERS
Oh right, GNU IceCat is based on Firefox ESR, which may disappoint some who want a forked Firefox Release.
For my part, I have opted for Iceweasel, which has accompanied me since Debian Lenny.
I hate DRM. In my case, I work and try to get everything legal, that includes software, books, etc. I bought a Kindle and bought a book that cost me 25 dollars, for an electronic book it is quite expensive, I wanted to share the book with a friend and the stupid DRM would not let me do it, so I applied the hack to remove the restriction and later I shared it.
I think the following, when you buy a book on paper, you have every right to lend it, give it away, burn it, etc. Why the hell can't I do with the book I bought on Amazon? I bought it and therefore it is MY BOOK, I did NOT rent it.
Now talking about Firefox and DRM, they have to do it so that the browser is more functional, unfortunately there is a lot of content with DRM and Firefox cannot be left behind in those things.
Magnatune is a perfect alternative for audiophiles who have only known iTunes and Spotify Premium.
Now, the problem is that many companies that implement DRM do so without taking into account the rate they offer (such as Amazon and / or iTunes), but the exceptions to so much abuse with price usury are very few (in the case of Steam, which has managed to get the most out of it with its daily offers, making its users continue to cling to the service even though their games have an insufferable DRM system).
Damn but if you give them a $ 3 game for $ 14 and you live giving them discount after discount, free games (yes, tokens with each game purchase, random free game you get) What the hell do you want to crack? Fuck me, they have to be extreme situations like Cuba, or more or less Venezuela with how annoying it is to get $$$, beyond that, why so much effort if the thing is worth $ 2?
Typically, these offers are seized on the spot. However, the problem is that in Peru, we have such a mediocre bureaucratic system -with respect to communications- that the highest Internet speeds are concentrated in Lima and coastal departments, while the rest of the departments, thanks to the unevenness of the geography, the bandwidth is distributed unevenly to such a degree that sometimes they are in the same conditions as Cuba (in other words, with an internet speed of the devil).
Another problem is the limited supply of debit cards suitable for electronic transactions, which are only offered by Interbank, which is the one that usury with the currency exchange. Therefore, not even Mercado Libre or OLX are a true reflection of the problem of mismanagement of measures to encourage electronic transfers.
I don't know about you, but I only get screwed by a couple of things (not to mention all of them): exchange control, hyper inflation. That's enough xD
In fact you can even sell it if you feel like it as a second-hand object and it is perfectly legal, not piracy xD
I join the DRM haters. Seriously, I absolutely hate adobe, shitty flash, microsoft, windows, and I know I may sound like a free software radical, but I assure you that it is not a question of radical or anything like that. There are companies that are disgusting with their products, but common users do not notice it. Common users have their PC's full of crap, annoying bars, proprietary software, viruses and other "pearls." Of course, if they can enter Facebook under their noses, everything is fine, but the day that some plugin, application or whatever gives them problems with Facebook, users will go out into the streets with torches and pitchforks xDDD.
regards
Sorry, but they are the most incoherent lines I've read ... You hate all that to death but you're not radical? How is that? D:
Sir, everyone can use and dis-use whatever they want ... What flash is shit? DEFINITELY, but in many cases it becomes a necessity for some, bad luck for them.
Hating them doesn't solve anything ... nor does saying you do, buddy.
«How does DRM affect me as a GNU / Linux user?
In nothing."
The answer is very simplistic, to begin with because DRM affects (not in a good way since it restricts the use of something you pay for) the same as a user of the system, call it GNU / Linux or Windows, and the rest of the explanation goes around the bush.
I have already mentioned it before, but DRM is only liked by large companies, and it should be implemented in their developments, the desire to have it in a browser has no head or tail if seen from a technical point of view.
But it makes a lot of sense from the point of view of someone who wants to collect data from their victims, I mean, customers (No matter that they can't snoop much, since a unique identifier per team, related to an account with data, even credit cards keep offering a lot)
If Netflix wants DRM, go ahead and make your player implement it, a la Spotify.
This topic coincides with the problems in Spain to see channel A3. In muylinux they commented on it http://www.muylinux.com/2014/05/09/atresplayer-discrimina-linux
and one of the developers explained that the problem was the DRM.
Link to FAQ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-latam/2014/05/14/drm-y-el-reto-de-servir-a-los-usuarios/ in case anyone has doubts. Let's not forget that in this version there is no possibility of having it optional.
Elav I understand you, yesterday I was watching the issue on social networks and it was incredible to see how the initial message from Mitchel Baker was degrading. Two things of the most belligerent about this measure caught my attention.
- They must use Ututo or an FSF approved distribution, along with IceCat, they must not watch DRM movies or songs from those and other sites you have commented like Netflix.
- Some have launched an exclusive boycott campaign against Firefox, so it seems that the rest of browsers or plugins such as Flash or Silverlight are DRM-free, with which the effect can be even counterproductive, since if they have not criticized other browsers or programs that do contain DRM without being optional.
- Instead of doing didactic work, or dedicating themselves to trying to hack DRMs, they opt for the easiest way, which is none other than attacking what little there is regarding freedoms. Mozilla is against DRM, but if a user cannot listen to or watch a movie and there is no free option, do you think that without didactic work they will simply give up DRM? I already say everything very counterproductive.
I wanted to say in my first paragraph that the news talks about future versions (not the current one), because I have already read information that talks about the present. 😛
The way Mozilla is going to implement it seems fine to me.
The only content with DRM that I currently consume are games because, as most of you know, I use Steam, although contrary to what most impose (the single device), I can take and install my games on other computers using my account , so it's not so bad anymore.
Me, unless I come across something that forces me to do it, it will certainly be disabled.
«DRM in Firefox ?? Burn it all !! ALLOOOOOO! »
Do not panic. I am anti-DRM, and I almost got the same scare as you, but as the post says, it is OPTIONAL. It will not come by default. It is as if you install flash player. You install it only if you want, period. Firefox is a trusted foundation that respects its users, and I know it will always be that way. What I don't understand is why so much shit is falling on mozilla lately, when they just want to progress. Anti-new interface people (which is pretty cool), anti-such people, anti-which anyway ... I support mozilla, and I believe that they have always made (and will make) the right decisions.
+ 1Mozilla !!
Use Chromium and / or SWare Iron, which lack DRM (Google Chrome does include DRM).
What a scare !!. I already said that by default it could not be. In addition, the news is not so scandalizing, it is as if you installed adobe flash player in firefox, although by default it does not come with proprietary crap, but you can put it as PLUGIN (OPTIONAL). Anyway, no matter how much they want to put a proprietary DRM decoder in a free sandbox, someone could create an add-on for firefox (or better yet, modify the sources of firefox), to load the decoded content, and we would continue in the same, at the authors would continue to copy their copyrighted content (for the record I hate copyright, above copyleft xD). It's like when some authors put javascript code so that you don't right click, see source code. It does not matter, to skip it you can skip it with some trick in the browser, or if not, make the http request manually, and see the sources ...
In short, I think it is impossible to protect content online, since it has to be decoded for the user to see it, but once decoded it can be copied without problem. Or better yet, we copy the encrypted content, it is not necessary to be able to decrypt it. Suppose a website named A has DRM content, and page B is going to get a pirated copy of it. The only thing that B has to do is an encrypted copy of A, and since the decryption is the user's browser, on page B it would also be seen ... Anyway, that more than protecting the DRM is a grain in the *** *
regards
1. Not all browsers embrace the standards in everything; MOZILLA COULD HAVE DENIED (AND MAY).
2. It is a complete deception that they say: "It will allow to enable or disable DRM at will, leaving the final decision in the hands of the users." so for this lousy deception, that users install all those closed-source programs (flash, photoshop, ms office, adobe.) and that each distro tell users that they can "enable or disable closed source" and that " Proprietary lines of code will be "wrapped" in an open source section that allows "monitoring and better understanding of the scope (phew, this closed code) and the activities of that proprietary code." That is a hoax.
3. If they are going to disrespect and violate your principles then why do they have them.
4. I hope libreoffice and others don't follow that bad example.
5. IT IS NOW TIME FOR A MOZILLA FIREFOX FORK ... LET ICEWEASEL AND OTHERS TAKE A STEP FORWARD ...
Ok, I want to try to answer your question point by point:
The browsers accept or not the standards they want ... putting the DRM here does not count, it is not a standard. Mozilla takes it because first of all, Mozilla must see its users and 80% (if not more) have no idea what DRM is nor do they care, Does Mozilla have the freedom to choose for you what suits you or exclude what do not think it is convenient for you?
That the proprietary blobs of a distro, or of the same kernel are enclosed in "sandboxes" is something strange, true, but they do not fall into the same field of Firefox. Firefox is not an operating system, it is an individual and independent program within which you can easily (or at least much more easily) control what it does and what it doesn't, and since DRM is not a dependency and this can be installed separately, I must say that this point is invalid. And yes, if you do not want to install Flash, you do not do it and the browser does not install it for you, nor does it force you to do so, you are forced as a user
Please, can you clarify for me exactly in which points you are disrespecting your principles? Sorry but its main objective is to bring the free web to users, and they continue to do so, the plugin is not an obligation and the internet and Firefox continue to work without it.
What does the ass have to do with the eyelash?
No more ultra-sensitive-gritty boycotts, please.
DRM is a term that encompasses a lot of standards, all to restrict the use of legally acquired digital media, or to manage, as they say.
In this case the EME is what comes into play.
How nice it is to invent XD statistics, but yes, many users have no idea about DRM.
Mozilla has the FACULTY, to choose what it offers to its users, as it has always done.
A clear example is the "80% or more" of users who would like to see YouTube or Gmail, as seen with Chrome, but Firefox remained firm in not accepting non-standard webkit and labels.
In fact, in the official media (which is where people should inform themselves so as not to form an opinion based on gossip) Mozilla accepts that DRM is an aberration, that they are not happy to promote it and that if they do it, it is because, in In this case, they have failed to change the abusive strategies of the companies (as they have done before).
That the internet and firefox continue to function has nothing to do with the rights of consumers being violated.
By poisoning dogs the world does not end either, but that is not correct.
With the rest I agree, the last word is in the user and if he wants to activate it or not.
To tell the truth, before DRM you could download entire seasons of your favorite series through cyberlockers without major problems on GNU / Linux and still, nobody required you to see them.
Now, that panorama of "happiness" has been reduced to the field of torrents and magnet links.
But it is that in the long run, in addition to being optional and totally indifferent, and I say indifferent because if you and I do not feel like installing it, we do not do it, just as if a user has NO idea that it exists … What would Mozilla do?
"DRM is bad (yes, for me it is) and that's why, since I know it's bad for you, I'm not going to let you use it."
Ok, that would make a concerned parent, but Mozilla is not anyone's parent, and had to accept H264 the wrong way (which shit, but it was necessary) because end users (those who are not like you or me who know more or less they stick to) in the end they saw their browsing experience screwed up.
Of course, for me DRM is unnecessary crap and O'Reilly proved it when he stopped adding DRM to his books and his sales increased (which is not a perfect object of study, but it is something). The thing is that for companies in general no, they continue to see the same business model and continue with the paranoia of piracy; Solution? Well, let's give the user the option, the power to choose if he wants to screw himself up or if he wants to continue without DRM ... for me, the right choice; We all have a gun in front of us at some point in life, we decide later what to do with it.
By the way, I do not think that the choice of not adopting Webkit and non-standardized labels remains in the same area ... this ends up pouring a much more technical issue that has little to do with the end user.
No, in the long run it will no longer be so optional, that is the problem, Firefox is the last thing we have left to give a «No, we do not accept DRM in a free Internet, if you want to use it, do it in your own development, at best success does Spotify ».
And it is that this goes further (W3C), if the standard becomes the norm, you will have native DRM in HTML5 and you will swallow it yes or yes.
Mozilla does not decide for anyone (more than for its own project), much less restricts, it offered you one more possibility, in an area where most already have DRM by default.
Like the 100% free distros, they don't give anyone a gun to use.
Likewise, if someone wants DRM, they can use another browser, or much better yet, a specific application for it, developed by transactional millionaires who make a profit from the rent / sale of content and not a foundation with very limited capital.
And with your example, yes, we have a pistol, we choose whether or not we take it out of the drawer, but with the DRM, the pistol aims and shoots itself, at the will of the bullet seller! Hurting 100% of the time whoever bought the gun.
If the seller wants to break into your house, you aim at him, but the gun turns and hits you straight in the chest.
Yesterday I was reading a very interesting point (it seems that those who say that: "for advanced users or GNU / Linux this does not affect us" They do not consider).
Firefox is Free Software, but what about the DRM inside?
If I modify firefox in something as simple as changing the logo, the DRM detects that I modify the font, its "unique identifier" no longer matches and it does not show me the videos.
Where is Mozilla's Free Software? If it deprives me of modifying it without losing functionalities.
@Staff:
That same. The problem is the implementation of DRM as a standard to HTML5, which, in the long run, tends to harm the client they supposedly want to benefit.
A very shameful case was the relaunch of Veronica Mars, which, if it had been released on Vimeo On Demand, would have been well received. However, they opted for a service that was pro DRM, and on top of that, it offered pathetic quality.
Long live the retrograde and bookish Icecat.
nano and tithe if they are going to start offending then that the moderator also allows the offenses towards you… it is only fair.
in their insults they only show the lack or weakness of their arguments.
With what on the defensive now?
Well, RWhere exactly do you see the offense? Because, one thing is to have a tone, or a wording that does not seem very "cordial" so to speak and another is that, I imagine, taking the opposite is taken as an offense.
In any case, friend, I am an Admin and I am not exempt from moderation ... simply that here there is no "offense" to sanction.
I don't know why anyone would use Icecat, seriously ... in fact, I haven't heard from the project for YEARS. And Iceweasel is not a big change or a big difference from Firefox D:
Icecat is based on esr.
The last time the FSF used the release branch to make IceCat was when they released version 5.0. As of version 10 of the ESR branch, this is when their stability improved.
I really don't understand your point of view… this is similar to when mozilla had to accept the use of h264 by force.
With the h264 they already tried to go against the current and they did not achieve anything ... only the loss of users.
In Peru, despite having a false prosperity behind us, most of the banks refuse to support electronic transfers on debit cards and the pair of banks that support it are usurers with currency exchange (reason for which Peru remains stuck at the bottom of countries that depend on electronic commerce).
In addition, although Peru has an average bandwidth that exceeds that of Cuba, this bandwidth is concentrated in the capital and in coastal areas and the rest of the provinces that are not on the coast, are in worse situations than in Cuba because of fault of the government bureaucracy with Telefónica.
It will not work for paid streamers .... I modify the source code of the video driver and hang in the video buffer directly, install the closed system as they want and pay them gladly ... while my video grabber works happily saving the movie in a video file and then watch it with what I sing and even upload it by p2p, which I would not do because I consider that you must pay for the content, but one is the owner of watching it 5 times a week on the devices that does one have ... or does not pay to get the movie or whatever?
This is the right to private copy ... if I pay, I own to see it forever, not for a single session ... what if, I do not agree to share it, if I pay for it, whoever also wants to see it pay, I have the right to private copy but I do not have the right to share that copy online.
In that I can totally agree ... the thing is that they do not like the right to private copy, in some cases they end up saying nonsense like "if someone else sees your private copy, even with your consent, you are pirating" .... So if my girlfriend sees the movie I bought with me, am I a pirate? xD
You are not a pirate, but you are sharing a set of ideas that the author wanted to share.
What they want to brand you as a "pirate" are those entities that want to control the flow of information on the Internet, and want to make this medium a unilateral medium, benefiting the sender more than the receiver, thus breaking reciprocal communication.
Okay, there we would have to change the word "buy" to "Rent" because in the long run with DRM what you do is that.
What a shame to be forced to use proprietary pieces: / if we want 100% free software: trisquel (among a few), but if we go deeper we collide with bios and frinware, in short, being 100 × 100% free to the letter ends up becoming a headache, in addition to that if it is achieved ... well, the most likely is they will sacrifice performance among other things and all that to collide with a roter and moden with frinware and soft ... you know bueno but hey, Rome didn't build in a day
And why do you use Windows?
Windows 8.1 also, let us remember that it gets along wonderfully with Linux.
to play XD
Firefox is not betraying us or selling us to corporations with all this, it is doing us a favor.
END
http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/25m9g8/can_this_web_be_saved_mozilla_accepts_drm_and_we/
This is the same as H264, or they implement it or users have to use another browser because they cannot see the content with Firefox, the W3C tantrum not Mozilla.
I hope I am not late in the debate on this issue ... but recently I commented on it in identical because I was also hearing from all sides about the problem that would give us ... that in reality I do not see any problem ...
Well as I said some time ago, computer education does not need to be only learning about office automation, we need a true "computer education" where even what are the most used iso or certificates and other security issues or in terms that really serve ... office automation, who just sitting in front of a computer will not understand…. but the computer terms are topics that must be explained clearly….
(Otherwise we will have a "collective panic" between people who, if they are told that the devil entered the Internet, will all throw holy water at the PCs ...)
https://identi.ca/dbillyx/note/EW6WRaTfT3Of4GDCWNulZw
I honestly think that the FSF is right to comment on the issue [1], I also agree that users are not very interested in the end, what they want is to click and watch the video, but that is no reason not to condemn mozilla, and I think mozilla is putting aside its ideals as this paragraph says: «Today's decision turns that calculus on its head, devoting Mozilla resources to delivering users to Adobe and hostile media distributors. In the process, Firefox is losing the identity which set it apart from its proprietary competitors »I also agree with this:
"To see Mozilla compromise without making any public effort to rally users against this supposed 'forced choice' is doubly disappointing."
Personally, I think that these types of situations are harmful to free software because they are intervening in the freedom of the user, I consider that if the user wants to have flash installed then that he installs it on his own but free software should not bring software by default proprietary although it can later be removed, I consider that it does not respect the user, now if the user is the one who wishes to install proprietary software, there is no problem, it is his own decision and not the software that is supposed to be free ...
By the way I was quite disappointed with this post, this is one of the blogs that I like the most and I visit the most and this type of post leaves me a little disappointed ...
[1] http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mozilla-and-adobe-to-support-digital-restrictions-management
Did you really read the article? I'm asking why you apparently missed this part:
At no time is Mozilla forcing anyone to use anything. That is up to the user. Mozilla is not changing anything in its philosophy, it is simply giving a chance to those users who want to use Firefox with DRM. If it does not, it loses users, if it loses users, the company can die and if it dies. What the hell do we get by being so puritans?
I am concerned that this "gossip" of users is replicated so much.
You can use the same note to exemplify it.
«Firefox loses users Is the world going to end?
No and a thousand times no"
It is not the first or the last time that a browser loses users and nothing happens.
IE lost users dramatically and is still alive.
GNU / Linux systems have always been crossed out that they are the famous 1% and NOTHING HAPPENS.
All that that users will be lost is nothing more than shameless FUD, in several places they are already publishing statistics on the loss of Firefox users. Coincidence?
When you see who the sponsors of the company that publishes them are, it turns out that they are the companies that generate content with DRM (BBC and others). Coincidence?
It has been repeated to them that the problem is deeper (W3C) but they focus on Firefox because it is the bastion of the free web and collapsing it gives the impression to the masses that everything is fine, that "the world is not ending" for that in the end nobody complains when DRM is imposed in HTML5 and it will no longer be optional.
It has nothing to do with being "puritan", in fact the term is absurd, the word is coherent, this is about complying with respecting rights and complying with laws, in that aspect there is no room for things like, puritans, Taliban, extremists, fascists .
It is absurd to call someone who seeks equality and respect for human rights, because these adjectives denote the opposite.
The policeman who is not corrupt, is not a puritan, nor a Taliban of the laws, he is a consistent being and a good policeman.
If you are against child abuse, you should not accept a little so that they do not call you a fascist.
The same here, if you look for free Internet, it is ridiculous to say: you have to accept a bit of proprietary software.
Laws and human rights are to be fully complied with, without exceptions.
Firefox may lose users (as it did, some of them, for not supporting the homophobic ex-CEO) because the same will happen if Firefox does not support DRM, even if it is optional.
As I said in my article, I am not talking about users who normally visit this blog, somewhat advanced users or who master certain technological topics, we are talking about users like my Dad (who are the majority), who when he talks to me about Firefox tells him "The Mozilla", and that when you can not see a video in DRM, you will find an advertisement or advertisement for Google Chrome saying that with that browser you can.
And there goes my dad, my aunts, my cousins, my family that knows nothing about Computer Science or differentiating between Private or Open Software, to use "something that works", no matter what else. And so users are lost. Cheeky FUD? I do not think so. I would do it myself, if I were to go in to watch a Netflix video and I couldn't do it from Firefox.
But if firefox loses (of those) users with each new version of Chrome! And it doesn't go away.
He lost them even when IE 7 came out.
When around his version 13 he became greedy of memory (to date he loses them for it)
This DRM thing will clearly not make it go away either.
In everyday software with so many good alternate options the number of users fluctuates terribly, that's the way it always is.
Firefox may lose 20 - 30% of users and still remain in the top 3 browsers.
There are browsers with much less and they do not die.
To assert something like that without foundation is FUD… Fear, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.
I can understand both positions, but ranting every time proprietary software is mentioned is not being consistent.
@StaffI have no idea what distro you use (it is not something that concerns me either) but as long as it is not a 110% free distro, as long as it is not, you are not being consistent with your comment or with your ideals.
And I'm not saying it to hell, we all, EVERYONE, use proprietary software in some way and, unfortunately, to be able to avoid it (which if possible) you have to make too many sacrifices that end up limiting your enjoyment and use of the tool that is your computer.
I am one of the people most against DRM that can exist, even though I understand its existence. For me, as optional as it may be, it is not a good idea and I think I have not implied otherwise. But!, I understand the reason for its implementation.
And it is that, although many do not like the idea, Mozilla provides a product for the masses, and its talk is to keep its users, behind all the altruism and good deeds there is that little strain of pettiness that is what actually allows it to exist: more users, all possible, and that is obtained by giving them what they want ... Is it the right thing to do? No, but there are many behind Mozilla with a lot to lose, since losing users is not the problem, the problem is losing against the competition and letting them surpass you and get too far ahead; there, leave for dead.
Rescue:
I totally agree with his loss of users and that he is still alive, but I feel that you are exaggerating when comparing ... taking into account that IE has advantages such as:
1.- A budget bulky to face everything.
2.- An omnipresent operating system that brings it by default.
3.- A mega corporation from behind.
Of which Mozilla has… uh… none. Mozilla relies purely on donation deals like Google's and its community, which does quite a bit for it.
"I can understand both positions, but ranting every time proprietary software is mentioned is not being consistent."
To clarify, I do not "rant" when the privative is mentioned. I do it when it is supported by lies, or misinformed, I don't care what people use at home, but if they lie to impose the proprietary in a standard that I will be forced to use if I am interested.
"@Staff, I have no idea which distro you use (it is not something that concerns me either) but as long as it is not a 110% free distro, as long as it is not, you are not being consistent with your comment or with your ideals."
And here it is debated if I am coherent? That we all somehow use something proprietary is an excuse? Do not argue with fallacies please, "evil of many consolation of fools" they say here.
"But !, I understand the reason for its implementation."
Me too but! That it is UNDERSTANDABLE does not mean that it is PERMISSIBLE.
"Rescue: ..."
Of course that is an exaggeration! And as such it is a valid argumentative element, especially because it is not debated which has more advantages, it was a single example of 3 that I put, of course, the other two you do not touch and you attack 1 example instead of the logic in the full argument.
Enough of beating around the bush, if you want to defend it, that's fine, it's your opinion and taste, but let's call things by their name.
You, Mozilla, I and many more, agree that DRM is an aberration and goes against the principles that Mozilla defends (Not only in your browser, but on the WEB and that's where the W3C comes in and the adoption of a DRM inherent to HTML5, where it will no longer be optional for the user), therefore, accepting it to keep users, Google sponsorships, or whatever advantage, is PROSTITUTE.
If you agree with her prostituting herself, well, I have no interest in changing your opinion.
But don't give me the lie that: By PROSTITUTING, the world does not end, but by not doing it if it ends.
I know you are not interested, but I clarify for future reference.
I have not only used proprietary software, I have developed it.
The difference is that I am aware of what freedom is with its obligations and I take responsibility for my actions.
I don't go like a coward around all the forums saying:
I'm not going to let crazy Stallman call me malevolent!
You might as well write to his email and tell him, since it has always been public.
But no, I accept how little or much malicious I have been, because not because I was malicious do I lose my right to criticize him.
I smoked for several years. Nor can I say now that tobacco is harmful and that no one should smoke?
Here it is about improving, evolving, looking for a long-term common good, not accepting something just because today it is easier for me and much less because there are those who already use it.
Ok Staff, before coming to a standstill with this conversation .. What do you propose to do in the face of all this? 😉
@Elav.
A Boycott !!!! Ejejeje, no, not at all.
But the correct thing is not to accept any kind of DRM in Firefox or in HTMLversion whatever.
I would propose (Knowing that I do not have all the answers and I can be wrong) to the users:
Making itself heard, Mozilla has direct and reliable communication with its users, listens to them and learns from them, so leaving apathy and taking the time to write an email (s) seems to me the easiest, prudent and very effective.
To content producers with DRM:
Use your own developments like spotify does.
To those who are fortunate enough to reach many people:
Report risks and alternatives to DRM in the browser.
Do not speculate (For or against what would happen if it is implemented or not).
Do not misinform.
I think a discussion of this in
The microkernel
although it is necessary to make clear the
philosophies, licenses
Embed the DRM in .js files as is done with embedding proprietary code in Google Docs, and thus the W3C would have avoided accepting the MPAA (a pity that the entry of the MPAA to the W3C was taken as something in the background, and there there are the consequences).