Mozilla's Original Sin.

Some will tell you that Mozilla's worst decision was to accept funding from Google, and that may have been the first domino, but I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them, as it led to their culture of capitulation. It demonstrated that their decisions were the decisions of a *company shipping products*, not those of a non-profit devoted to preserving the open web.

Those are different things and are very much in conflict. [...]
https://jwz.org/b/ykVr

Mozilla's Original Sin

Some will tell you that Mozilla's worst decision was to accept funding from Google, and that may have been the first domino, but I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them, as it led to their culture of capitulation. It demonstrated that their decisions were the decisions of a company shipping products, not those of a non-profit devoted to preserving the open web. Those are different ...

@jwz disagree. I know many ppl that would or could not use Firefox if they hadn’t and like this it’s a viable alternative. What do the gazilion Mozilla/netscape/firefox or chromium forks/alternatives do for the open web because they disable drm or replaced / removed other functionality? Not much.
@fl0_id "But some people would not have used Firefox" is exactly the argument for market share over principles that got us into this mess.
@jwz not ‘some people’ but basically no one would have used it. I don’t disagree that it (engaging with market realities) is also a problem, but that does not mean that the opposite would have been better
@fl0_id Well, you're wrong. \/\/
@jwz @fl0_id Please help me understand how. Among people who use Windows, macOS, or desktop Linux, and subscribe to a subscription audio or video streaming service, what program would they have used alongside DRM-free Firefox to interact with said streaming service?

@PinoBatch If the only thing you think a web browser is for is watching Netflix, maybe Internet Explorer is a better browser for you.

I haven't watched a DRM-encumbered file since probably 2009. And that wasn't in a browser, it was on a TiVo.

People who have jobs, for example, tend to use web browsers for things other than watching television.

But those kitten cold cuts sure are tasty!

@jwz @PinoBatch "I haven't watched a DRM-encumbered file since probably 2009."
@jwz Say people use web browsers for things other than watching television. What other program would they use for watching television on Windows, macOS, and desktop Linux?
@jwz @PinoBatch certainly in all the government and finance sector contracts I've worked, watching the safety training was mandatory, and only supplied on DRM'd formats. The lock in is as complete across about 80% of work use cases as it is for mainstream media consumption.
@PinoBatch @jwz @fl0_id DRM is more common now than when Mozilla first implemented it in Firefox. If Mozilla had not implemented it, that would have impeded the wider adoption of DRM.

@varx @jwz @fl0_id In practice, refusing to implement Encrypted Media Extensions would have required each streaming provider to publish a macOS native app and a Windows native app to view the service. This would have left users of desktop Linux unable to view what they were paying for.

If you have ideas for a business model for a subscription #streaming service that does not rely on digital restrictions management to deter casual stream ripping, I'm interested. For comparison, cable TV has been scrambling pay-per-view for decades and using Macrovision ACP to block VCR use.

@PinoBatch DRM has never been an effective means of deterring stream ripping. And there are already subscription streaming services that use the ground-breaking model of "you pay us money, we send you video" without involving DRM.