He's not really talking about Firefox, but the role Firefox used to fill, of being the browser that exclusively worked in the interest of its users. Having DRM standardized obligates browsers to work in the interests of the entertainment industry against their users, even when, absent DRM, there are uses of encumbered data that would be legally permissible, like saving a local copy of streaming media so you could play them offline or just to have a backup. Like all IP issues, it's something most people don't care about because unless you're in the entertainment industry, where any kind of restriction on the use of IP is good for you because it creates artificial scarcity that you can use to keep your old business model viable now that there's no inherent cost in reproducing data, or in the technology industry, where restrictions in the use of data based on legal bullshit are always a burden and never a benefit, even and especially when the suits think they're a benefit, it looks like some arcane legal thing you have no reason to care about. Also like all IP issues, you should care because it's your culture you're not allowed to participate in because your legally-enforced role is to be a consumer, not a participant. Homer would get his ass sued off today. In particular, you should care about you software working against you because your software is working against you.
Thanks for the explanation. My level of not understanding is more basic than your explanation. But I think I'm getting the issue if you say that under this policy, you wouldn't be able to save a copy of some data without a DRM and play it. For example, you couldn't copy a youtube video even if the owner gave you permission. (I don't know if you can do this now because of youtube, but that's the principle.) I really do care when my software is working against me. I just wasn't sure in what way this was supposed to be doing that. Maybe I can ask in another way. Does this mean that no new browser today could get around the standard that the W3C set as the author is explaining here? This is the opposite of every W3C standard to date: once, all you needed to do to render content sent by a server was follow the standard, not get permission. If browsers had needed permission to render a page at the launch of Mozilla, the publishers would have frozen out this new, pop-up-blocking upstart. Kiss Firefox goodbye, in other words. What would have to change for there to be a browser to change this feature?This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them have a CDM, or this part of the "open" Web would not display in their new browser.
Thanks. Could the browser developers take advantage of this (in the wiki)? Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. ยง 1201 (f)) says that you are allowed to reverse-engineer a protected program in order to figure out how to get it to interoperate (i.e., exchange and make use of information) with other programs.Reverse Engineering and Circumvention
Depends on the context. I recently read about a rapist who was let off in Oklahoma or Kansas, somewhere in that region, because their law didn't specifically bar having sex with someone who was unconscious due to intoxication. Letter beat the spirit to hell in that case.