this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1743 points (99.2% liked)

Firefox

17865 readers
13 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Without video DRM those services don't work at all. It was necessary to keep users.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Without video DRM those services don’t work at all.

(x)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I think they meant it as a "necessary evil" because companies could start implementing their own drm and make everything more difficult to crack. Also without it, companies would not trust it without drm due to the greed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Don't work at all" in Firefox, when Chrome implements the DRM the service insists upon and Firefox doesn't

and

"Don't work at all" because the services can't exist without DRM

are very different assertions.

I think you're (rightfully!) doubting the latter, but the person you replied to meant the former.

[–] Mikina 1 points 1 year ago

But that's exactly the point. The fact that they have given up before on something as small (compared to this proposal that could affect a lot more content) as video/audio DRM only means that anything they say about this is meaningless. Google already knows that Firefox fill just give in and implement it anyway, so they have literally no reason to listen to them.

But I understand that there's nothing they could've done about it, given their market share. Just like they can't do anything in this situation, apart from "strongly disagreeing" before eventually being forced to implement it anyway, because without it more and more websites will stop working at all, and it will be necessary to keep users.