Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Save Firefox

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#21

Post by HalcyonicStorm »

twblalock wrote: post #15
Endy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

some examples, por favor?

Re: Save Firefox

#22

Post by jflatow »

> 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.

This is the crux of the issue. The W3C is creating a standard which gives control to the publishers over which browsers can display their content.

Whether that's "right" or "wrong" is worth debating, but sometimes the real issue at stake gets obscured in these discussions.

Re: Save Firefox

#23

Post by gshulegaard »

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…

I am a little confused by this comment. What status quo?

Silverlight is deprecated. Flash is (at least seems to me) taking its final breaths.

HTML5 pushed many web native standards for open media: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/Usin.... In fact, the HTML5 video/audio was so open that YouTube had to kill a Chrome extension that allowed users to use YouTube as a music source without advertisements or video: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/how-youtube-killed-.... (Side note: the history of what went on with Streamus is woefully simplified in this article...but let's just say the Streamus dev was open from Day 1 with Google but only after his extensions started getting traction they shut it down.)

Anyway, moral of the story is this would be a standardization that steps _back_ (in many ways) to the days of Flash/Silverlight dominance...not standardization of the status quo (at least IMO).

Re: Save Firefox

#24

Post by dasil003 »

azakai wrote: post #5

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only…

Your last sentence is exactly right.

Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no leverage on rights holders. If the streaming technology isn't available, then the studios will simply choose not to stream it, and whoever builds it first will have a huge market advantage.

Fighting EME not only is ineffectual, it harms open web standards by giving legs to completely proprietary solutions like Flash and Silverlight. The bottom line is that EME is a cleaner solution which compromises in a way that will make open standards more relevant going forward rather than taking an ideological position that will undermine the utility of open standards in the marketplace.

Instead of attempting to fight a self-harming losing battle, I wish the EFF would focus on the real problem which is the DMCA's overreach. Studios should feel free to build whatever DRM schemes they want, just like the people should be free to circumvent those measures for content they have legally purchased. Copyright law is sufficient to balance individual and studios' rights across a diversity of scenarios with getting a technical quagmire that benefits no one.

Re: Save Firefox

#25

Post by bla2 »

azakai wrote: post #5

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only…

Browsers want to get rid of Flash and other plugins. Netflix was the largest site using Flash. Netflix distributes content, and the content owners aren't willing to have their content distributed.

I don't disagree with what you say, but it's possible to see EME as a pragmatic inevitability, assuming that browsers want to get rid of plugins (which seems like a good change) and assuming that content owners demand DRM (which makes less sense to tech-minded people).

Re: Save Firefox

#26

Post by 0x0 »

If firefox really cared about its users maybe it should stop force-feeding "value-adds" like Hello and Pocket down everyone's throat by default.

Re: Save Firefox

#27

Post by Ileca »

You can test your convictions by disabling DRM content in Firefox. Uncheck "Play DRM content".

Unfortunately, convictions won't have consequences on future decisions because the standard is here and the more you wait the more it becomes embedded. W3C allowed it to come to light when various plugins wouldn't make DRM viable or at least more difficult to implement and reach general agreement. Now, even if you can opt out with Firefox, Netflix really don't care about that because you decided to disable it so you are a bad client anyway. I understand why the article is talking about pop-ups because the moment Firefox decided to implement it, we lost the fight. I use Firefox but lately, I am saddened by their lack of strong convictions and how they tend to follow google a little too much. (At least, FF sandboxed the CDM, while not perfect, the other browsers didn't do it, isn't it?)

Re: Save Firefox

#28

Post by blacksmith_tb »

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.

As a long-time FF user I should be flattered, but it seems like a tough claim to back up. I don't see any design emphasis in Firefox on 'intelligent' users; 'free' is a little easier to believe, in the sense that the other major browsers are very tightly bound to certain OSes and/or their creators (IE/Edge on Win, Safari on OSX, Chrome on, well, lots of things). Chrome seems just as likely to appeal to the intelligent user (if their smarts run toward fast browsing), though given all its telemetry (e100.net etc.) it isn't perhaps the most free...

Re: Save Firefox

#29

Post by gshulegaard »

jflatow wrote: post #22

> 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…

You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

Re: Save Firefox

#30

Post by jflatow »

dasil003 wrote: post #24
azakai wrote: post #5

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only…

Your last sentence is exactly right. Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no le…

I think I agree with you, but the EFF raises some good questions. If content producers have this kind of control, how do you ever create a new browser? And can users really choose their browser if the major publishers have that much control?

In other words, if I want to create a new browser, I then have to convince every single publisher whose content I want to display that they should add me to some list of approved providers. This does seem like it's just going to reenforce any initial power dynamics. I'm not sure what a better solution is though.

Post reply on HN