Skip to main content

Mozilla, DRM, and Fighting Smart

News came out of Mozilla that was of zero surprise to me, and many others, but did upset and surprise a great number of people. Mozilla, long time champion of a free and open web, is backing down on their stance to never incorporate the new DRM mechanisms in HTML5 into Firefox. Firefox will officially support blackbox DRM’ed content played back exclusively through closed source components.

The new DRM support in HTML5 has been inevitable for some time. It is not inevitable because DRM is a good thing (it is not) or because the media companies are too powerful to fight (they are not). The inevitability of this beachhead was all due to two names on the draft authorship list: a developer from Google (the company that brings you the Chrome browser) and a developer from Microsoft (of Internet Explorer). When this DRM spec was first proposed it was obviously inevitable because it did not come from outside, but from within, and with a foothold in two of the most popular browsers in the world. It was obvious that from Day One both would support these new capabilities, that Netflix (also a co-author) and many other media sites would utilize it, and that users would be left with either a severely limited web experience or the option to leave Firefox behind.

Mozilla tried to make a stand and it was entirely admirable.

It was not, however, practical even for a second.

DRM can be beaten. DRM can be made irrelevant. DRM can even be made detrimental to the very media corporation profits that drove it into existence in the first place! This is not the day when these statements can be made in the present tense. The fight we have before us is a long-haul fight.

Had Firefox been kept out of this game entirely, it could not participate in that fight at all. We could all see the writing on the wall when Mozilla so valiantly tried to make their stand. Had they continued, we would have seen them launch (I’m sure of this) some campaign to push DRM free video portals as alternatives, to showcase that now all video content requires these measures. They would have been laughably limited and done little more than to showcase the (current) need to give users access to the content they actually do care about.

That is why, for the time being, this was the right move.

Firefox will continue to allow users to access Netflix and Hulu and Youtube content that requires silly measures to make content owners comfortable. Staying in the fight today will allow Mozilla to contribute to the fight for a long time coming, and I do think this will be a long time fight.

I just don’t know what that fight will entail.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…