Re: [Wikimedia Brasil] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Jonas Xavier]

Calma, o Icecat ainda resolve.

On 15/05/2014, Raylton P. Sousa  wrote:
> Resumindo... DRM "tenta" proteger o lucro de Hollywood as custas da nossa
> liberdade de compartilhar. É mais uma daquelas coisas que quer desinventam
> a Internet.
> E agora o navegador que é/era símbolo da luta contra o monopólio da
> distribuição cultural e da liberdade na internet, entrou nessa também.
>
> Não podemos deixar isso passar!
>
> "Quando compartilhar é um privilégio. Piratear é um direito."
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Free Software Foundation 
> Date: 2014-05-15 8:30 GMT-03:00
> Subject: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
> Digital Restrictions Management
> To: "Raylton P. Sousa" 
>
>
>  *You can read this post online at https://u.fsf.org/xk
> .*
> FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital
> Restrictions Management
>
> BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA — Wednesday, May 14th, 2014 — In response to
> Mozilla's announcement that it is reluctantly 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 Firef

[Wikimedia Brasil] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Raylton P. Sousa]

Resumindo... DRM "tenta" proteger o lucro de Hollywood as custas da nossa
liberdade de compartilhar. É mais uma daquelas coisas que quer desinventam
a Internet.
E agora o navegador que é/era símbolo da luta contra o monopólio da
distribuição cultural e da liberdade na internet, entrou nessa também.

Não podemos deixar isso passar!

"Quando compartilhar é um privilégio. Piratear é um direito."


-- Forwarded message --
From: Free Software Foundation 
Date: 2014-05-15 8:30 GMT-03:00
Subject: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support
Digital Restrictions Management
To: "Raylton P. Sousa" 


 *You can read this post online at https://u.fsf.org/xk
.*
FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital
Restrictions Management

BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA — Wednesday, May 14th, 2014 — In response to
Mozilla's announcement that it is reluctantly 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