FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support DRM

Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by Rusky on Thursday May 15, 2014 @10:23AM (#7749563)

I mean that their fears are not (necessarily) misguided, and claiming them to be is not helping the FSF's argument. I would rather they focus their arguments on the real reasons to avoid DRM, rather than making unverified claims about Mozilla's motivations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by higherpurpose on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:17AM (#7749914)

But Mozilla gave us unverified claims, such as "we'll lose market share". Where are the numbers to support that? That's what FSF means.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by Rusky on Thursday May 15, 2014 @12:02PM (#7750233)

How are they supposed to verify a claim like that in advance? Their market share is dropping already, that's about as rigorous as you can get without forking the universe to run some tests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by edwintorok on Thursday May 15, 2014 @05:29PM (#7752360)

Meantime I think Firefox still doesn't support DASH/Mediasource by default, which means you get lower resolution videos on Youtube: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778617

If video support is so important, why don't they prioritize that over this DRM thing?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by magicalist on Thursday May 15, 2014 @01:43PM (#7750977)

Not from lack of EME. EME isn't nearly widespread enough to have any impact. Netflix still runs just fine in Silverlight.

In the absence of evidence, I don't see how claiming those fears are misguided is any less valid than claiming that they are well founded. I'm not really sure what argument you're making here.

[ Parent | on HN ]