Revert 'advocacy/LetterToMozilla'to Revision Number '5'
Meta data of item revision to be reverted:
- Action: SAVE
- Address: 10.0.0.3
- Comment: ''
- Content Type: Moinmoin 1.9 [text/x.moin.wiki;format=1.9;charset=utf-8]
- Data ID: c53b1e708eb4404588565c340938b70a
- External Links: (None)
- Item ID: 39af23a8aa57435c9fe34b022e4fae53
- Item Links: (None)
- Item Transclusions: (None)
- Item Type: default
- Language:
- Modified Time: 2015-04-29 05:41:08z
- Name: advocacy/LetterToMozilla
- Old Name: (None)
- Namespace: ''
- Parent Revision ID: 550e80b6db9148ca8a8c37aed4886359
- Revision ID: bd9419d2cdc24ada8421dbd2ba084372
- Revision Number: 5
- SHA1: 78700170504d6a5265ef0e51587917ad6092844f
- Size: 3.3 kB
- Summary: ''
- Tags: (None)
- Trash: False
- User ID: de0a5c52eff7499980f2de73bc1f18fe
- Wiki Name: My MoinMoin
Content of item revision to be reverted:
May 6, 2015
To Andreas Gal,
We are a group of Free Software advocates from Melbourne Australia who would usually hold Mozilla in high esteem. However, on this International Day Against DRM we feel compelled to join the FSF and DefectiveByDesign in condemning Mozilla's decision of including proprietary mechanisms (Encrypted Media Extensions) in Firefox.
We understand that you are trying to do what makes content owners comfortable lest they not allow their content on your browser as outlined in the article "DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users". However it seems that your focus is on the short term; compromising your values to retain existing users, rather than protecting them in the longer term. Your article significantly neglects any mention of why proprietary technologies are harmful, and that it is making it easier for users to inflict this harm upon themselves.
When data passes through a machine that cannot be inspected by its user we’ve lost essential freedoms that we've come to depend on. When this is enabled by a foundation we've learned to know and trust, it is particularly disappointing. Firefox has lost a key differentiator over competing browsers and puts at risk the support you have gained from being the most open and free solution for the web. We wish for Mozilla to stand with us in this fight against antifeatures.
The Mozilla Manifesto's second principle is that "The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible" which seems at odds with the situation where some free software HTML5 video playback formats are still not supported however at the same time Mozilla was able to support DRM in the browser so quickly.
The plugin functionality users currently enjoy was not implemented with the specific intent to assist in the development of DRM technologies and the plugin architecture has benevolent uses. EMC on the other hand has a single purpose hostile to the user and the Free Software movement. The seventh principle in the Manifesto "Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource" should compel you to strongly reconsider this decision.
We agree that "In the past Firefox has changed the industry", however it did not do so by implementing antifeatures that "become the norm". Perhaps supporting or promoting alternatives would be more productive. Implementing EME damages uptake on those very alternatives. What efforts has Mozilla undertaken to counter this harm? How is implementing EMC encouraging content providers to do the right thing and what kind of example does it set? It also seems that companies like Netflix encourage and supply dedicated programs and devices rather than promoting the browser option in the long run.
In the article it is mentioned that "until an alternative system is in place, Firefox users should be able to choose", we ask what Mozilla has done to promote or support alternatives? and in the spirit of the final principle of your Manifesto: "Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment" we ask that you give this matter the time, attention and commitment that it deserves.