If members are disgruntled, you can fork. That's happened before when there was disagreement about what to do with HTML, and it led to the creation of the WHATWG.
By and large, members this time are supportive. Not all, mind you, but all the large players.
(For those who don't know, Widevine, the DRM scheme that is currently best known as compatible with EME, and which taints my Firefox browser so I can watch movies, is owned by Google.) http://www.widevine.com
(Sidebar to the sidebar: Widevine has the least Googley website you've ever seen. Stock photos of a physical padlock, HTML code entirely based on table tags for layout. It's so strange.)
As advocates,I'm sad to see them do this. I will still donate to them, but it's unfortunate to see them quit. This means they will no longer have a seat at the table for future discussions.
They still do enough good to be worth donating to, but this was not a very good choice on their part.
"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."
Rather: "the browser where you cannot see DRM-infected video" - which is an active protection of the user against malware.
You should look at how Mozilla implemented EME then. The CDM is sandboxed, in a much stricter sandbox than the rest of the browser even. So no, the CDM potentially being dangerous (for privacy or security) isn't actually that much of an issue.
Of course, someone might at some point claim that the privacy features harm the copyrights protection, at which point choices will have to be made.
History provide ample evidence that Mozilla will make the choice their users ask for (which is, by the way, not necessarily the choice some users will voice the most loudly).
To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but "people should just not watch DRMed video" is not an actual answer to the problem at hand.
This battle is lost, let's not lose the war to have our little Alamo moment.
It's the same logic that leads to them to support JavaScript.
Replace "play poker with his buddies" with "watch movies his buddies are talking about" and "Joe's Terrible Malware-Infested Poker Site" with "Netflix's DRM-Infested Site" and the results are the same every time. Your grandpa isn't likely to care if Netflix has DRM or not so long as it doesn't stop him watching movies. If Netflix, because it's the brand he and his buddies trust, tells him to install a thing to keep watching movies, he installs the thing.
Maybe, maybe you might be able to convince your grandpa to stop watching videos using that thing he installed because it's bad for his computer's health... but there are a lot of "grandpas" out there, it's a huge category of people that "I just want to do the thing and I don't care how so long as it works and is convenient".
I don't think this a question of timeframe, it's a question of do the right thing for the most users. There are a lot more "grandpas" than there are DRM-fighting or at least DRM-wary concerned citizens like you or me.
This is clearly written from the perspective of somebody who never did help desk work or helped family or friends with computer problems.
You can't solve this problem at the standard level or the browser level. You can only solve by education users enough that they see no DRM as a feature and at the legal level by enshrining user protections in law.
False dichotomy. Instead of exposing a small percentage of users to large attack vector (native app), you are exposing a very large percentage of users (close to 100%) with a lower attach vector. THe potential for damage is much, much higher, since it would affect about everyone using the Internet with major browsers.
Maybe go even further outside the box, use gngr: https://gngr.info/
This was rather the point of Fall of Men ("Zeitpunkt des Sündenfalls") in Firefox' history to me. It was also the point in time where I stopped donating to them.
Make the zero-tolerance for DRM a unique selling point of Firefox.
In summary, if you already have Firefox, you don't need to go download a separate build to opt out of DRM. You can just uncheck the "Play DRM-controlled content" checkbox in the prefs to get to the same configuration.
You just have to reframe it to something like: "protects you against websites that try to plant DRM-malware on your computer".
If anybody was forcing them, it were the media companies.
EDIT: Yes, and Apple, I completely forgot about iTunes.
I don't see them dropping it even if the HTML standard Firefox follows drops them, unless other browser vendors drop EME too.
And those working for Google attempting to divert attention to Hollywood are symptomatic of the reality distortion field and self deception of SV. Google is a spyware company engaged in mass surveillance and creepily following everyone on the planet for profit. There are no redeeming values here. SV is basically a gold rush with greed and money being the primary driver glossed over with dollops of pretension.
The world just has to step up to take control and diminish the ideology that drives SV. So far be it open source, web services, standards or regulations there is no contribution. Why are there no alternatives to Firefox, Google, Facebook and others? You can't be completely dependent on these companies and then claim victimhood.
If you're interested, I wrote up some notes/thoughts from my experience in one of the sessions about EME and whether to implement it:
They have consistently thrown in the towel while diluting the very things that users would choose them over Chrome for.
There are many ways to exert influence in this world. Mozilla is in SV and is very much part of the culture and ecosystem. We need genuine alternatives and activism against entrenched interests.
No.
This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.
Not accurate. EME was created and driven by Google, Microsoft and Netflix, as you can see here:
https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
Firefox opposed it very strongly, and only gave in and implemented it when it was clear that all other browsers were behind it - at that point the battle was already lost.
When the EFF says
> The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they’ll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.
It is safe to assume the companies the EFF refers to are Google and Microsoft.
This was absolutely NOT wanted by Firefox.
They were the only browser to represent the users in this fight.
Don't put Mozilla in the same group as those other traitors.
They were folding, too.
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM on demand, with user permission, to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM. The CDM runs in a separate container called a sandbox and you will be notified when a CDM is in use. You can also disable a CDM and opt out of future updates by following the steps below. Once you disable a CDM, however, sites using this type of DRM may not operate properly."
They rather lost a unique selling point. Not implementing EME/DRM is a form of protection of the user against malware.
A well-hidden build of Firefox to silence the people who accuse the Mozilla Foundation of betraying their principles...
This really matters because so many of those exploits relied on other features to actually run the payload. Not having any of those in the first place is a big attack surface reduction, even if the politics are legitimately debatable.
But they ended up including DRM in their browser. So they're traitors and hypocrites, right?
And who was WHATWG? Oh right, exactly the same companies that now voted for DRM as W3C standard. And why could they do WHATWG? Because they are the vendors of the majority browsers.
Ian Hickson also came out strongly against DRM when this whole debate started: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
Look at the history of their standards, and the direction that the web has actually gone.
The power for where the web goes is in the hands of web developers and browser developers. The W3C documents some things, but they are not a major player.
"L'etat, c'est moi" - until a new state comes to power.
The web is its users.
The history of wide scale, maintainable, free speech just hasn't worked. Ever. Why should computers be any different?
Oh, you mean I can't get Netflix on the forked internet? Welp, back to mainline.
Netflix is on the other side? Cancel 'em.
1. Cancelling Netflix saves money.
and ...
2. Watching less TV gives you more free time to get outside, exercise etc.
Anyways, Netflix, Google, Apple, and Microsoft (probably - they aren't making their votes public) support this, so this is a great time to cancel your subscriptions and stop using their products.
And that (the web as it is) is exactly what I want. And I want that the media companies who cannot accept that the web is free of DRM to stay away from it.
You can complain, of course. What you can't do is control others. That's something the web is good at working around.
They try to spread DRM-malware over the EME interface onto the user's computers.
You can complain, if you want. That doesn't appear to be helping but you're free to do so.
My strategy is to avoid it where reasonably possible. I let other people do what they want with their stuff.
"Alternative web: Some competition without DRM, zero-rating, or other nonneutrality bullshit"
You go ahead and stick with your Netflix, buddy, and best of luck to ya.
American ISPs and legal precedent are all of course bought up by the interests building the former, but luckily I'm not tied down here.
Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.