On 10/18/2013 05:54 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 19 October 2013 00:42, <semn...@gmail.com
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:08:16 PM UTC+3:30, saura...@gmail.comwrote:
>>> The W3C has declared <
>> that DRM is in scope for HTML. What is Mozilla's official response
>> regarding this? Do you think Mozilla can/will refuse to implement DRM
>> related items in the spec even if the spec with DRM provisions is finally
>>> - Saurabh
>> I dont even want to use black box in my browser. if W3C want to use this
>> for money talkers like google or media companies, let it be, mozilla is
>> community and must be followed by people no companies like google,
>> microsoft or apple.
The decision here would not change anything related to this. If you buy
a Hollywood video and wish to view it using your browser, you will have
to use some sort of black boxed plugin to view it. If you refuse to use
any sort of black boxing, you will not view the video. If you choose to
pirate the video instead, you will be breaking a law, and you will be
able to view the video without using any sort of black box.
>> We love mozilla cause it's defense the privacy, dont sell user data to NSA
>> or etc ...
Mozilla does not and can not protect you from the NSA, except indirectly
by lobbying for laws to be changed and/or enforced.
As far as I am aware, nobody has been accused of selling user data to
the NSA. If the NSA wants the data, they coerce whoever has it to give
it to them.
>> Google, Apple, Microsoft push on W3C to implement DRM or any future of
>> web. It is time to decision to be with people or against them.
>> viva Mozilla.
The EME decision standardizes the interface for using DRM. In practical
terms, it does not enable anything that was previously impossible.
Whether or not it will end up making DRM more or less prevalent is a
question of game theory, and can be legitimately argued. But it is an
oversimplification to assert that Mozilla implementing EME is equivalent
to Mozilla accepting or promoting DRM.
If you look at the branches of the game theory tree where Mozilla
refuses EME, one possible branch leads to Firefox's market share
collapsing and DRM becoming more widespread. This would seriously damage
Mozilla's mission of improving the Web. It is not the only possible
outcome of refusing EME, and other possibilities have a better outcome.
But it is one we need to avoid, and simply saying that we will have
nothing to do with EME is dangerous.
>> W3c is still alive during being reference for developer-
> The web and also the w3c have been under attack consistently since
> inception, there's nothing really new here. I strongly believe that the
> scope is consistent with the principles.
> This is nothing at all to do with the w3c who are open to ideas.
> This simply a question of whether mozilla wants to back this new
> technology, and as a consequence wants to open or close their source.
Implementing EME would not close Mozilla's source. It would provide an
open source extension framework that would allow third parties to inject
DRM and black boxes and cryptography keys and ugly-looking cats and
dogs. All at the same time. Living together.
Some number of end users would then choose to install closed-source
black boxes for decoding DRM'd movies via EME. If Firefox does not
implement EME, then some number of end users will switch browsers, some
number will use an alternative closed-source black box browser plugin
such as what exists today (Flash, Silverlight), and some number will
play the movies via separate closed-source black box applications that
having nothing to do with a browser. Again, it's a matter of game theory
to figure out what the end result is.
> Of course mozilla are highly influenced by google.
Mozilla has been foolish enough to pay me to work for them for a few
years now. The only way in which I have ever noticed Google influencing
us is by being faster/better at something or other and forcing us via
market pressure to catch up. If they were able to push us around, they
never would have implemented Chrome. Paying that many developers to
implement their own private browser is not cheap. It may seem odd that
Google has so little influence given the amount of money they feed us,
but (1) the traffic we send to them is enormously valuable in its own
right, and (2) they're also paying us to NOT send that traffic to
somebody else. (To me, Google's Chrome strategy feels more like risk
mitigation than profit-seeking.)
> but I'd be be extremely happy if it remained open source.
Mozilla's mission does not absolutely require the browser to be open
source. Its current culture pretty much does. There are few if any
factors motivating us to close the source. There are large factors
keeping us with open source (like, say, the whole Mozilla volunteer
In other words, it ain't gonna happen.
Footnote 1: Despite my air of assurance above, I haven't been following
any of this EME stuff very closely. Somebody please correct whatever I
Footnote 2: Another bad outcome (or branch in the game tree, if you
prefer) is if personal videos and tutorials and other non-Hollywood
videos were to start using a DRM-encrusted delivery mechanism commonly
or by default. This would be far worse than just having DRM used for
Hollywood material. The health of the Open Web does not depend on
Hollywood movies being watchable and remixable without DRM. (It would be
great for the Web if they were, since it's a rich source of raw
material, but it's no great loss to not have that.) Not being able to
watch Hollywood movies at all on an open base platform (Linux, Firefox,
etc.) *is* serious, if it leads to a dramatic loss of market share for