Petition to Mozilla: Remove DRM

Discussion:

Hugo Roy

2014-10-05 17:10:20 UTC

Hi,

There's a petition to ask Mozilla to remove DRM

https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-remove-drm-from-firefox#invite

Best,

--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141005/ac0e5352/attachment.pgp>

Pierre Schweitzer

2014-10-05 17:55:20 UTC

Permalink

Dear all,

I'd like to raise a few points on that concern, because they are a few
dark corners for me. I hope you can throw some light for me on this.
What's exactly the matter with supporting DRM? It means that they will
have to ship some closed source binary with Firefox so that DRM will
properly work in Firefox?

If that's the case, what about letting the users the freedom to
choose? Distributions rebuild their Firefox (or equivalent), so they
can provide a DRM-free and a DRM-compliant release? I'm seeing this as
it could be done for Linux with non-free and free firmwares. Perhaps a
too naive approach?

I'd like to highlight some major point in the end: the user must be
free. That's IMHO the most important thing, and this shouldn't be
forgotten. Let's impersonate a Firefox end-user. They want to be able
to browse the web and visit sites that have an interest for them. This
might include Netflix for instance. And this requires DRM support.
Firefox doesn't have it and plans to have it. Why would we choose for
the user what's good or not? That's not free software.

Let's have the upstream developer do what he believes match the users
requirements. And let's just ask him possibility to eventually disable
such features if they don't match distribution/user philosophy.

Ideally, this should be implemented so that there's only one
mainstream firefox and a closed-source module that you can
plug/install whenever you need it. This would let the end-user the
freedom to use the DRMs (or not).

Do you have any information about how the Mozilla Foundation plans to
implement this?

If I'm missing anything, explain me.

Cheers,
Pierre

Post by Hugo Roy
Hi,
There's a petition to ask Mozilla to remove DRM
https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-remove-drm-from-firefox#invite
Best,
-- Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org> Deputy
Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal> Coordinator,
FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>
Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing
list Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

- --
Pierre Schweitzer <pierre at reactos.org>
System & Network Administrator
Senior Kernel Developer
ReactOS Deutschland e.V.

Thomas Doczkal

2014-10-05 19:32:19 UTC

Permalink

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
Do you have any information about how the Mozilla Foundation plans to
implement this?

Hi Pierre,

I think this link [1] which you might not have seen on change.org
explains the way Mozilla considers to go.

They already have some options in mind. One option mentioned is creating
a fork of Firefox which has DRM included and offering both to the users.
IMHO this sounds like a chrome vs. chromium thing. I think it's a
similar story here.

I don't have enough background knowledge about DRM to know how often you
will need this to have a "good" Internet experience.
All I know is that neither DRM nor Silverlight will work on Linux
comfortable.
I can't believe that Adobe will support GNU! Linux in there Access CDM
for long. They recently stopped to support the adobe reader[2] which
IMHO mainly companies use in there work flows. They also changed support
for Flash player to maintenance mode and haven't done more then critical
bug fixes for quite some time. Furthermore support for Adobe Air (which
is I think less painful then the other two above) is no longer given for
Linux OS.

I think it's time to stop DRM and push HTML5 further to get an open web
experience with many advantages compared to HTML Version 4 or less.

Let's see what time brings.

Best Regards,
Thomas

[1]
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/
[2]
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-No-Longer-Listed-as-Supported-Platform-for-Adobe-Reader-460372.shtml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141005/bbc43d94/attachment.pgp>

Pierre Schweitzer

2014-10-05 20:22:26 UTC

Permalink

Dear Thomas,

Thanks for your link, I indeed missed.

Actually, this link is really relevant. To make it short, Mozilla is
not about to implement a new DRM into Firefox, but just adding support
for such DRM (in a sandbox, even). As it has been done for NPAPI,
which is the example they often give on this blog post.

They even talked about "module", which really makes me think that we
could unload this from Firefox. And thus, you'd be able to plug it on
demand.

This even goes a bit farther in my previous opinion, there's no need
to oppose to Mozilla pushing support for DRM into Firefox. They
implement an API to support them, they don't provide them. This will
likely be a matter of shipping afterwards: do you provide the module?

At least, with the API available, you let the user free to have DRM
support or not.
Why would we have to oppose this? They offer the choice, they don't
force the user? If he doesn't want the module and wants to remain
fully open source, he's free to do so.

Regarding your last statement Thomas, I've to point that DRM are still
required for some contents in HTML5. I mean, switching to HTML5 won't
solve the DRM issue. This is actually what Netflix (still a good
example for this) relies on to bring its services to Linux users:
HTML5 + DRM.
This allows them to move away from Silverlight and Windows.

Side note for the usage, as you wondered, still reading the link you
pointed, 30% of the downstream traffic in North America is DRMed.

Cheers,
Pierre

Post by Thomas Doczkal

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
Do you have any information about how the Mozilla Foundation
plans to implement this?

Hi Pierre,
I think this link [1] which you might not have seen on change.org
explains the way Mozilla considers to go.
They already have some options in mind. One option mentioned is
creating a fork of Firefox which has DRM included and offering both
to the users. IMHO this sounds like a chrome vs. chromium thing. I
think it's a similar story here.
I don't have enough background knowledge about DRM to know how
often you will need this to have a "good" Internet experience. All
I know is that neither DRM nor Silverlight will work on Linux
comfortable. I can't believe that Adobe will support GNU! Linux in
there Access CDM for long. They recently stopped to support the
adobe reader[2] which IMHO mainly companies use in there work
flows. They also changed support for Flash player to maintenance
mode and haven't done more then critical bug fixes for quite some
time. Furthermore support for Adobe Air (which is I think less
painful then the other two above) is no longer given for Linux OS.
I think it's time to stop DRM and push HTML5 further to get an open
web experience with many advantages compared to HTML Version 4 or
less.
Let's see what time brings.
Best Regards, Thomas
[1]
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/

[2]

Post by Thomas Doczkal
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-No-Longer-Listed-as-Supported-Platform-for-Adobe-Reader-460372.shtml
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing
list Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

- --
Pierre Schweitzer <pierre at reactos.org>
System & Network Administrator
Senior Kernel Developer
ReactOS Deutschland e.V.

Paul van der Vlis

2014-10-05 20:28:20 UTC

Permalink

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
Dear all,
I'd like to raise a few points on that concern, because they are a few
dark corners for me. I hope you can throw some light for me on this.
What's exactly the matter with supporting DRM? It means that they will
have to ship some closed source binary with Firefox so that DRM will
properly work in Firefox?

No, there will be no closed source in Firefox, but Firefox will have a
mechanism what can download closed source from Adobe when needed, and
when the user allows it.

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
If that's the case, what about letting the users the freedom to
choose? Distributions rebuild their Firefox (or equivalent), so they
can provide a DRM-free and a DRM-compliant release? I'm seeing this as
it could be done for Linux with non-free and free firmwares. Perhaps a
too naive approach?

It's like downloading and using non-free software.

A distro can remove the download-mechanism, or package it seperate in a
non-free repository.

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
I'd like to highlight some major point in the end: the user must be
free. That's IMHO the most important thing, and this shouldn't be
forgotten. Let's impersonate a Firefox end-user. They want to be able
to browse the web and visit sites that have an interest for them. This
might include Netflix for instance. And this requires DRM support.
Firefox doesn't have it and plans to have it. Why would we choose for
the user what's good or not? That's not free software.

I think a browser like Firefox is important for us. When they would
remove the possibility to use DRM many users would go away.
Maybe it would mean the end for Firefox in time.

Chromium is nice too, but I like not to be dependent from such a big
commercial organisation like Google is. Now they've removed NPAPI
support from Chromium for Linux. I understand they do that, but many
people cannot use some important features like Java anymore in that
browser. In some countries you really need Java (Danmark, Mexico).

It's important that flash will go away. HTML5 with DRM is a good
argument to remove flash. At the moment many sites are migrating from
flash to HTML5. Without DRM!

I've removed flash (and free alternatives) completely from my computer.
I use only free software now and I've no big problems. Sometimes I get a
warning that I need flash, but it's most of the time for advertising.
Most video sites work without problems with HTML5 now. (But for many
cool games for kids, you still need flash.)

On the other side, I understand the petition. When Mozilla would not
implement DRM this would be really good for the fight against DRM.
Some sites will not use DRM because not all browsers support it.

But I am afraid it's not good for the market share of Firefox and I
think Firefox and Mozilla are important.

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
Let's have the upstream developer do what he believes match the users
requirements. And let's just ask him possibility to eventually disable
such features if they don't match distribution/user philosophy.
Ideally, this should be implemented so that there's only one
mainstream firefox and a closed-source module that you can
plug/install whenever you need it. This would let the end-user the
freedom to use the DRMs (or not).
Do you have any information about how the Mozilla Foundation plans to
implement this?

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/

I am against DRM and I will not enable it. But I will not sign the
petition at this moment. But, maybe somebody can convince me.

What I hope, is that DRM will be not-used. WIll be hacked. Is irritating
people. I hope we will find ways to kill DRM.

What I would like, is when Firefox would give default a big warning when
a site uses DRM, even when you have installed the closed-source software
from Adobe. I would like to sign such a petition.

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
If I'm missing anything, explain me.
Cheers,
Pierre

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

--
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl

Paul van der Vlis

2014-10-05 21:56:49 UTC

Permalink

Post by Paul van der Vlis
I am against DRM and I will not enable it. But I will not sign the
petition at this moment. But, maybe somebody can convince me.

At the moment I see many sites offer HTML5 without DRM when there is no
flash. That's really nice. And most Silverlight sites are already gone.

But there is a big risk: maybe at some day, when the browsers support
it, all those sites will turn on DRM. And you will see nothing anymore.

Something like the "Sintel" video here:
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/html5/eme/

Then I have to use it too, I am afraid. Sometimes.
When there are no alternatives.
Then they have a new DRM platform.

When I look at this picture:
Loading Image...

Then I don't understand the security. The open source software gets the
decrypted video, so can store it unencrypted. True?
Not sure, but I am afraid this cannot be implemented this way...

The picture comes from this interesting page:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.

--
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl

Daniel Pocock

2014-10-06 08:31:38 UTC

Permalink

Post by Paul van der Vlis

Post by Paul van der Vlis
I am against DRM and I will not enable it. But I will not sign the
petition at this moment. But, maybe somebody can convince me.

I agree - that is the big risk of Mozilla's decision. Mozilla says they
are making it easier for the users - but they are also making it easier
for the publishers to cease using non-DRM channels.

It is important to remember that this is a market where free software is
only one piece of the puzzle. Mozilla can influence but may not be able
to change the overall direction at this point in time.

As well as the petition, it is worth asking what other positive steps we
can take.

For example, a few years ago I helped get flactag into a package on
Debian. flactag and MusicBrainz make it easier for people to manage a
collection of music CDs and play them back with a similar experience to
iTunes but without the nasty things such as user tracking or the
difficulties that arise when you want to give a CD to somebody else as a
gift or when another person in your household wants to play the CD.

Awareness of flactag and other things like this is still quite minimal
though, despite the obvious benefits they present.

It could also be further optimized for batch processing (it is easy to
script the batch for creating the flac files, but the tagging process is
interactive with pauses between each file)

Hugo Roy

2014-10-05 20:50:53 UTC

Permalink

Yes, for users who do not want to install DRM, this will not
affect them. But this will affect everyone else who will simply
follow the default reccomendation and end up supporting DRM.

Mozilla argue they do this because they cannot go against the
trend in the market to impose DRM on HTML5 videos and thus, in
order not to lose market shares because of this, they will support
it.

I think this analysis is wrong, because the Firefox market is
wider than just the US and the biggest video website in the world
does not have DRM at all (except for the paid-for service, which I
never heard of and is probably again only used in the US).

DRM are a nuisance and their costs should not be a shared burden
for Mozilla and Firefox users worldwide.

Just my personal opinion

Best,
--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141005/20cadf33/attachment.pgp>

Pierre Schweitzer

2014-10-05 21:14:37 UTC

Permalink

I guess we do all agree that DRM are a nuisance.

I'm just not sure whether using Mozilla Foundation willingness to
support them is the right place to raise such debate.

We shouldn't fight so that FOSS actors don't implement DRM support,
but we'd rather fight so that DRM disappear. Which is already a
work-in-progress, as your next mail shows.

Regarding the paid-for services using DRM (and HTML5 -
work-in-progress here as well), I can quote France where we have two
major services competing: Netflix & CanalPlay. Both are using DRMs and
are about to switch to HTML5.
They recommend using Google Chrome at the moment and up to date
libnss, hence the recent upgrade of such library on Ubuntu recently
(through security channel).

This is indeed a market loss for Firefox, but at least, in France it's
hard to know how big it is. We don't really know about the amount of
users of such services.

Yes, for users who do not want to install DRM, this will not affect
them. But this will affect everyone else who will simply follow the
default reccomendation and end up supporting DRM.
Mozilla argue they do this because they cannot go against the trend
in the market to impose DRM on HTML5 videos and thus, in order not
to lose market shares because of this, they will support it.
I think this analysis is wrong, because the Firefox market is wider
than just the US and the biggest video website in the world does
not have DRM at all (except for the paid-for service, which I never
heard of and is probably again only used in the US).
DRM are a nuisance and their costs should not be a shared burden
for Mozilla and Firefox users worldwide.
Just my personal opinion
Best,
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing
list Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

- --
Pierre Schweitzer <pierre at reactos.org>
System & Network Administrator
Senior Kernel Developer
ReactOS Deutschland e.V.

Hugo Roy

2014-10-05 23:13:58 UTC

Permalink

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
Regarding the paid-for services using DRM (and HTML5 -
work-in-progress here as well), I can quote France where we have two
major services competing: Netflix & CanalPlay. Both are using DRMs and
are about to switch to HTML5.

So Mozilla contributes to making the French market ready for DRM
on HTML5 for new players like Netflix and for CanalPlay.

If Netflix is now in France, it is very recent. As for CanalPlay,
it seems to me that their market share for videos on the web (or
vdeos on the internet entirely) is quite insignificant against
YouTube and ISP's TV offers. The analysis that Mozilla has no
choice and has to follow the market not to lose users is a very
narrow minded view of the situation.
--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141006/3287f1fd/attachment.pgp>

J.B. Nicholson-Owens

2014-10-06 00:08:54 UTC

Permalink

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
I'd like to raise a few points on that concern, because they are a few
dark corners for me. I hope you can throw some light for me on this.
What's exactly the matter with supporting DRM? It means that they will
have to ship some closed source binary with Firefox so that DRM will
properly work in Firefox?

Coming from a perspective of software freedom and discussing this on an
FSF mailing list such as we are, it seems to me the situation should not
be framed in terms of the movement that doesn't support software
freedom. A "closed source"[closed] binary is a reference to the open
source movement, the very movement that has no problems abandoning their
own developmental methodology[abandon] when a sufficiently convenient
and powerful proprietary program is published. This abandonment is no
accident, as that movement was designed to not support software freedom
in the first place. As the FSF points out, "Most discussion of ?open
source? pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and
success[...]".

The freedom to choose is a ruse. Choosing unethical behavior or choosing
power over others[power] (proprietary software certainly is the
proprietor asserting power over that program's users) is an attempt to
turn software freedom into merely another alternative[alternative] among
equally valid alternatives, thus dissuading anyone from thinking
non-freedom is an oppression.

Sometimes freedom requires a sacrifice. Your Netflix example currently
requires Free Software users to do without Netflix. This is a small
sacrifice anyone can make in the pursuit of software freedom.

What you propose here is indistinguishable from how proprietary software
already works. Users on MacOS or Windows can choose not to install
Adobe's DRM binary. And asking for "eventual" action is asking for
delaying one's software freedom.

The heart of this issue is not how much of a nuisance DRM is, nor
whether Adobe will publish binaries that run on one's preferred
GNU/Linux system. Those are minor technical distractions that fail to
address the freedoms all computer users deserve and how important it is
to consistently frame the issue around these freedoms in order to ensure
any real resolution is built by first respecting these freedoms.

[power]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html for explication
on how proprietary software is always power over users, never freedom.

[abandon]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
particularly the section titled "Different Values Can Lead to Similar
Conclusions?but Not Always" for how this abandonment occurs.

[closed]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Closed for more
on this.

[alternative]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative for
more on this.

P.B.

2014-10-06 06:04:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
I'd like to highlight some major point in the end: the user must be
free. That's IMHO the most important thing, and this shouldn't be
forgotten.

I agree with Pierre here.

When the Firefox-DRM issue came up initially (around May), I talked to a
Mozilla developer (who's a Fellow) about this.
Here's a short summary of the key points as he explained them to me:

If I understood the developer correctly, then there's no proprietary code in
Firefox (FF). Even pre-built binaries by Mozilla.

Firefox will install Adobe's DRM module on-demand on an opt-in basis,
when the users opens a website which would require DRM to play content
(e.g. Netflix).

For convenience reasons, the proprietary module is downloaded by Firefox
automatically *before* any DRM-requiring site is opened, so it is
immediately installed and useable on-demand.
On Freedom-aware distros (e.g. Debian), I imagine that they will change
the default behavior to *not* automatically download any propietary
extension modules.

So, like most of us Free Software users already do on a daily basis, we decide which services (e.g. sites) we use, and which we don't.
With FF offering the option to support DRM-requiring sites, this choice is still in the hand of the end-user.

Something that might also be worth knowing is, that the current
situation is, that DRM-requesting sites only serve their content to
users who run Flash or Silverlight - not as HTML5.
Flash and Silverlight both run as Firefox plugin, whereas the DRM-module
runs in a (newly implemented) sandbox.

According to the developer, FF-Plugins have way more access to the system than
this sandbox has/will have. Additionally, the unique-IDs required by
DRM-proponents (e.g. Hollywood, Sony) to be generated in order to comply
to the HTML5-DRM-Standard implementation, are calculated and provided by
FF's sandbox. Therefore, FF controls how (and if) unique-IDs are generated.

I'm not saying I'm fine/happy with Mozilla's decision, but the bright
side might be that this chess-move probably will help them to keep their
voice in e.g. W3C decisions, because they will very likely lose less
users by enabling FF to watch DRM-requiring sites.

And I'd also like to highlight what Pierre already said:
It's about giving users freedom. In my book, that includes the freedom
of choice.

Regards,
Pb

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141006/e5a6d5e9/attachment-0001.pgp>

Hugo Roy

2014-10-06 07:39:31 UTC

Permalink

Freedom of choice is a nice illusion when most users simply follow the default settings (and in most user-scenarios that means Firefox will get them DRM including a nonfree content decryption module).

--
Envoy? de mon t?l?phone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la bri?vet?.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141006/870e4066/attachment.html>

Pierre Schweitzer

2014-10-06 08:12:12 UTC

Permalink

You talked twice about the "default settings". Do we know that they'll
be regarding DRM?
Can't we imagine it will act as for some "dangerous" plugins in
Firefox: it will prompt the user before doing anything?

Otherwise, can't be the default settings changed on distribution
basis, each packager being able to set them as it matches best its
distribution philosophy?

Post by Hugo Roy
Freedom of choice is a nice illusion when most users simply follow
the default settings (and in most user-scenarios that means Firefox
will get them DRM including a nonfree content decryption module).
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing
list Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

- --
Pierre Schweitzer <pierre at reactos.org>
System & Network Administrator
Senior Kernel Developer
ReactOS Deutschland e.V.

Paul van der Vlis

2014-10-06 08:26:19 UTC

Permalink

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
You talked twice about the "default settings". Do we know that they'll
be regarding DRM?
Can't we imagine it will act as for some "dangerous" plugins in
Firefox: it will prompt the user before doing anything?

True. Or you could imagine a warning what you can turn-off per site.
So when you come the first time on a site what uses DRM, you will get a
warning, even when you turned the warning off on other sites.

Post by Pierre Schweitzer
Otherwise, can't be the default settings changed on distribution
basis, each packager being able to set them as it matches best its
distribution philosophy?

Most people are not using a free distro. With a "per distro setting" you
don't get many people rejecting DRM.

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.

--
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl

André Ockers

2014-10-06 08:26:25 UTC

Permalink

Dear Fellows,

Post by Hugo Roy
Freedom of choice is a nice illusion when most users simply follow
the default settings

With Freedom comes Responsability. If I choose to not change default
settings, then that is my choice. If I choose to change default
settings, which in this case seems to be the smarter choice, then that
is my choice as well.

Best Regards,
- --
Andr? Ockers
Fellow, Free Software Foundation Europe

ao at fsfe.org
GnuPG Key: F5FE3668

https://blogs.fsfe.org/ao

Federico Bruni

2014-10-06 08:23:16 UTC

Permalink

IMO Firefox should warn the user and point her/him to a webpage explaining what DRM is. If the user doesn't care about freedom then of course he should be free to install the DRM software.

Freedom must be a choice otherwise it doesn't make sense.

But I understand your concern: FF is kind of supporting the idea of DRM, not to lose many users who will install DRM to keep using those websites.
Do you think that Firefox should/could fight against DRM? I don't have this expectation

Thomas Doczkal

2014-10-05 19:58:09 UTC

Permalink

Post by Hugo Roy
Hi,
There's a petition to ask Mozilla to remove DRM
https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-remove-drm-from-firefox#invite

Hi,

thanks for pointing me to this site. I sign but I'm not sure that it was
successfully submitted.
Do you get a success mail when your signature has been processed?

Best Regards,
Thomas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141005/fc3d03a1/attachment.pgp>

Hugo Roy

2014-10-05 20:57:22 UTC

Permalink

Taking the opportunity of this discussion to point out that we
have made a booklet on DRM:

https://fsfe.org/contribute/spreadtheword.html#drm-leaflet

You can order them with other advocacy materials that we
distribute near you to spread the word ?

Best,
--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141005/9501fcd8/attachment.pgp>

Thomas Doczkal

2014-10-06 20:10:39 UTC

Permalink

Post by Hugo Roy
https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-remove-drm-from-firefox#invite

Hi,

maybe someone has the same trouble as I have receiving the success mail
from change.org.
I tried several times yesterday and again today but don't get a
confirmation e-mail.

Any Idea what I need to allow to send the submit?
I allow everything temporary in RequestPolicy but even then I have no luck.

I'd like to mention that I block facebook.* and twitter.com on a local
DNS, might that be an issue here?

Thanks for help.

Best Regards,
Thomas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141006/756faa78/attachment.pgp>