Save Firefox • Hacker News Board

Re: Save Firefox

#11

Post by hsod » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

> 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.

Isn't this just a standardization of the status quo, with Flash/Silverlight? Why is it that I always feel like I'm being sold a bill of goods when I read EFF pieces?

Re: Save Firefox

#12

Post by Eupolemos » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

binaryanomaly wrote: post #9

As much I would love to... Just recently switched from FF to Chrome since the latter just works technically a lot better :-( Hope the new servo engine can make FF shine again otherwise I fear the worst.

You really should have read the article before posting.

Re: Save Firefox

#13

Post by jessriedel » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:26 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

I mostly agree, but isn't it plausible that a centralized standard allows DRM to become more prevalent? Right now lots of copyright-able content is begrudgingly released freely to attract eyeballs, but that could decrease if DRM becomes more seamless.

Re: Save Firefox

#14

Post by MajesticHobo » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:28 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

> something that DRM isn't preventing you from doing something you're otherwise not supposed to be doing anyways.

And what would that be?

Re: Save Firefox

#15

Post by twblalock » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

Endy wrote: post #6

usernamebias wrote: post #2

Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be? Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r... Chrome's had it since v 42 https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808

Because, with the recent decisions re Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind aren't getting better - they're actually getting worse. Also, EFF has been running articles about DRM lately. It's not that we're only stoking the fire now... It's that they are writing about it again.

> Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind

That's not remotely close to being true.

Re: Save Firefox

#16

Post by tracker1 » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

I have to agree... in the end, if you can't access Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, etc, the majority of people won't use your browser. In order to succeed, imho, you need a great base UI, good support for emerging standards and to support the sites that people use most... Facebook, Google, YouTube and Netflix.

At least EME lets all browsers stand a chance of being able to use all the sites they want to use. And as much as I don't like DRM, it's commercially unavoidable, regardless of how weak the implementation is.

Re: Save Firefox

#17

Post by Karunamon » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

MajesticHobo wrote: post #14

Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

> something that DRM isn't preventing you from doing something you're otherwise not supposed to be doing anyways. And what would that be?

Recording it. It's a stream, you're paying $company for the rights to access content over the wire. Recording that isn't a right, legal or moral.

Re: Save Firefox

#18

Post by wmf » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

hsod wrote: post #11

> 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" We…

In theory a new browser could load the existing Flash NPAPI plugin without help from Adobe, but it's much more work for new browsers to support EME. And plugins (read: Flash) are being phased out, so if EME could be killed then DRM would also be phased out from the Web.

Re: Save Firefox

#19

Post by nwah1 » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

usernamebias wrote: post #2

Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be? Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r... Chrome's had it since v 42 https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808

Mozilla fought harder against EME than any other browser vendor by far. As a user concerned about the open web, using Mozilla products is a way to bolster it.

Re: Save Firefox

#20

Post by Karunamon » Wed, May 11, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #13

Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

I mostly agree, but isn't it plausible that a centralized standard allows DRM to become more prevalent? Right now lots of copyright-able content is begrudgingly released freely to attract eyeballs, but that could decrease if DRM becomes more seamless.

The DRM makers still have to write, ship, and get people to install the decryption piece - EME just gives it hooks into the browser (and allows said plugin to be appropriately sandboxed, restricted, and treated like the hostile black box piece of crap that it is).

So in other words, probably not any more than the current system.