Firefox bringing you DRM

wow, ok so firefox is going to include a DRM binary from adobe inside a "sandbox". it will no longer be 100% free software.

* http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow/print
* http://andreasgal.com/2014/05/14/eme/
* https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=923590
* https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/

The reason for implementing DRM is to kill DRM, somehow..I think this is just post-hoc justification for the bad decision of compromising their core ideals for the sake of market share.

Please stop telling people to go back to /g/. This is only harming the quality of this board.

>>51-pyon

Awwww, I can't do that?

The anal rape will occur in the shower room and won't come packaged with the imprisonment. The user may choose to submit to it when they shake their irresistible skinny white faggot booty.

You goddamn hippies need to get a life. It would have been an issue if they chose to rape every prisoner by default, but they won't, so stop bitchin and go back to /g/.

>>50
dude are you really this fucking clueless
if so it's sad because you wont even connect the dots when you see the horrible results this causes

>>54
There are no dots to connect. This is opt-in and the DRM runs in a sandbox.

>>55
When sites start to require the DRM plugin to the extent that javascript is required today it will theoretically be a problem. Realistically, all DRM that is sufficiently a pain in the ass is cracked. It's a balance of powers. Be annoying enough to attract the human time and labor of the crackers and you will be cracked.

When sites start to require the DRM plugin to the extent that javascript is required today it will theoretically be a problem.

This tells users exactly which website to avoid. Any website that is broken without Javascript is broken by design. They let us know that we should avoid the website altogether. Any websites that use the DRM are also a way of telling users to avoid it completely.

>>57
I'm afraid the `we' in that sentence is a significant minority >>57-kun. I avoid websites that require these things because I'd rather not subject myself to the latest new javacallhandlebackpalletleveruseafterfreeclickoverrun exploit. Websites have been getting better about at least loading and displaying text without requiring javascript. But many present interfaces that require javascript to navigate. So if you need to use a website for something, or if you are searching for information, it's likely you will need to use javascript or not get very far.

>>56

talking shit like this when you cant even crack

>>59
That's not what I said !