[Linux] mozilla et les drm

[Djan GICQUEL]

J'ai envie de répliquer,
http://korben.info/drm-mozilla-pris-bonne-decision.html


2014-05-16 10:34 GMT+02:00 Manu <manu@::1>:

>  Salut
> Certains ont sûrement reçu ceci sur des listes fsf ou via la liste april.
> Je transfère ici. Il s'agit de dénoncer les DRM chez Mozilla (D'ailleurs,
> comme Steam, c'est mal... (message en passant ;) )
>
> From: Free Software Foundation
> Date: 2014-05-15 21:11 GMT+02:00
> Subject: Tell Mozilla: No DRM in Firefox
>
>
> We want to alert you to new developments that unfortunately require more
> action. Yesterday, Mozilla announced that it is adopting DRM in its Firefox
> web browser. Please read and share  our statement
> condemning this decision, and write to Mozilla CTO Andreas
> Galletting him know you oppose DRM.
>
> Thanks for all you do,
>
> John, Libby, William, and the rest of the DRM Elimination Crew
> FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital
> Restrictions Management
>
> In response to Mozilla's announcement that it is adopting DRM in its
> Firefox Web browser, Free Software Foundation executive director John
> Sullivan made the following statement:
>
> "Only a week after the International Day Against
> DRM,
> Mozilla has announced that it will partner with proprietary software
> company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital Restrictions
> Management(DRM)
> in its Firefox browser, using Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).
>
> The Free Software Foundation is deeply disappointed in Mozilla's
> announcement. The decision compromises important principles in order to
> alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser marketshare. It allies
> Mozilla with a company hostile to the free software movement and to
> Mozilla's own fundamental ideals.
>
> Although Mozilla will not directly ship Adobe's proprietary DRM plugin, it
> will, as an official feature, encourage Firefox users to install the plugin
> from Adobe when presented with media that requests DRM. We agree with Cory
> Doctorow that there is no meaningful distinction between 'installing DRM'
> and 'installing code that installs DRM.'
>
> We recognize that Mozilla is doing this reluctantly, and we trust these
> words coming from Mozilla much more than we do when they come from
> Microsoft or Amazon. At the same time, nearly everyone who implements DRM
> says they are forced to do it, and this lack of accountability is how the
> practice sustains itself. Mozilla's announcement today unfortunately puts
> it -- in this regard -- in the same category as its proprietary competitors.
>
> Unlike those proprietary competitors, Mozilla is going to great lengths to
> reduce some of the specific harms of DRM by attempting to 'sandbox' the
> plugin. But this approach cannot solve the fundamental ethical problems
> with proprietary software, or the issues that inevitably arise when
> proprietary software is
> installedon a user's
> computer.
>
> In the announcement,
> Mitchell Baker asserts that Mozilla's hands were tied. But she then goes on
> to actively praise Adobe's "value" and suggests that there is some kind of
> necessary balance between DRM and user freedom.
>
> There is nothing necessary about DRM, and to hear Mozilla praising Adobe --
> the company who has been and continues to be a vicious opponent of the free
> software movement and the free Web -- is shocking. With this partnership in
> place, we worry about Mozilla's ability and willingness to criticize
> Adobe's practices going forward.
>
> We understand that Mozilla is afraid of losing users. Cory Doctorow points
> outthat
> they have produced no evidence to substantiate this fear or made any
> effort to study the situation. More importantly, popularity is not an end
> in itself. This is especially true for the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit
> with an ethical mission. In the past, Mozilla has distinguished itself and
> achieved success by protecting the freedom of its users and explaining the
> importance of that freedom: including publishing Firefox's source code,
> allowing others to make modifications to it, and sticking to Web standards
> in the face of attempts to impose proprietary extensions.
>
> Today's decision turns that calculus on its head, devoting Mozilla
> resources to delivering users to Adobe and hostile media distributors. In
> the process, Firefox is losing the identity which set it apart from its
> proprietary competitors -- Internet Explorer and Chrome -- both of which
> are implementing EME in an even worse fashion.
>
> Undoubtedly, some number of users just want restricted media like Netflix
> to work in Firefox, and they will be upset if it doesn't. This is
> unsurprising, since the majority of the world is not yet familiar with the
> ethical issues surrounding proprietary software. This debate was, and is, a
> high-profile opportunity to introduce these concepts to users and ask them
> to stand together in some tough decisions.
>
> To see Mozilla compromise without making any public effort to rally users
> against this supposed "forced choice" is doubly disappointing. They should
> reverse this decision. But whether they do or do not, we call on them to
> join us by devoting as many of their extensive resources to permanently
> eliminating DRM as they are now devoting to supporting it. The FSF will
> have more to say and do on this in the coming days. For now, users who are
> concerned about this issue should:
>
> -
>
> *Write to Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal and let him know that you oppose DRM
> *. Mozilla made this decision in a misguided appeal to
> its userbase; it needs to hear in clear and reasoned terms from the users
> who feel this as a betrayal. Ask Mozilla what it is going to do to actually
> solve the DRM problem that has created this false forced choice.
> -
>
> *Join our effort to stop EME approval
>  at the W3C*. While
> today's announcement makes it even more obvious that W3C rejection of EME
> will not stop its implementation, it also makes it clear that W3C can
> fearlessly reject EME to send a message that DRM is **not** a part of the
> vision of a free Web.
> -
> **Use a version of Firefox without the EME code**: Since its source code
> is available under a license allowing anyone to modify and redistribute it
> under a different name, we expect versions without EME to be made
> available, and you should use those instead. We will list them in the Free
> Software Directory .
> -
>
> *Donate to support the work of the Free Software Foundation
>  and our Defective by Design
> campaign to actually end DRM.* Until it's completely gone, Mozilla and
> others will be constantly tempted to capitulate, and users will be
> pressured to continue using some proprietary software. If not us, give to
> another group fighting against digital restrictions."
>
> References
>
> - What is DRM?
> -https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/
> -https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/
> - https://defectivebydesign.org/dbd-condemns-drm-in-html
> - https://fsf.org/news/coalition-against-drm-in-html
> - https://defectivebydesign.org/oscar-awarded-w3c-in-the-hollyweb
>
>
>
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe HTML a été nettoyée...
URL: <https://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/pipermail/linux/attachments/20140518/771d8342/attachment.html>