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

31–40 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#31

Post by JoshTriplett »

bla2 wrote: post #25
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 (…

> Netflix was the largest site using Flash.

Netflix didn't use Flash; it used Silverlight.

> 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

Or browsers could just collectively get rid of plugins, and the media industry could whine ineffectually at the lack of DRM. They're not going to build their own browser, and people wouldn't use it if they did. Netflix wouldn't go away; millions of people would complain if it stopped working.

Re: Save Firefox

#32

Post by dtech »

gshulegaard wrote: post #23
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 advertisem…

Problem is that Netflix & co are stuck with Flash or similar because content owners will not allow it to be streamed/provided without DRM. So currently it's Flash with no alternative.

EME is not the ideal situation from the consumer's PoV, but it's on par with flash (maybe a bit better) and preferable to nothing* .

It would be a net loss if previously unencrypted content would now become encrypted, but I don't think that's likely as a host like say Youtube already had access to DRM/encryption in their Flash player even before HTML5 video was a thing but never used it. I thus expect it to be mostly a net gain/neutral.

* If you personally think nothing is preferable over watching content with EME: great, don't use it. But forcing that choice upon others is not better.

Re: Save Firefox

#35

Post by mynameislegion »

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…

I've read many articles critical of EME and this is the first time I've heard this information. If true, as you said, it is THE issue.

It was always my assumption that EME represented a standard way for CDM's to interact with the browser. EME is to CDMs as NPAPI is to plugins. That is to say, a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard. Is this assumption completely false?

Re: Save Firefox

#36

Post by hsod »

gshulegaard wrote: post #23
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 advertisem…

The status quo is this:

If I build a browser right now from scratch, it can't play Netflix videos.

Re: Save Firefox

#37

Post by adrusi »

RubyPinch wrote: post #4
neurobuddha wrote: post #3

Doesn't Mozilla have a lucrative deal with Yahoo? I mean Yahoo!

yeah but so? from my read-through, its not literally "save the one and only firefox", its "we need an environment that allows for other browsers to enter the field" which DRM prevents

Does EME prevent new browsers from implementing it freely. I admit I haven't read the spec but from what I've read second-hand, it seems like it enables the vendor to ship the DRM code as a binary blob that runs natively in a sandbox.

As I understand, EME doesn't lockout new browsers, it locks out new architectures and kernels. But any new architecture that comes along that anyone would want to use to view DRM-encumbered media would be mainstream enough that content providors would support it, and people running an experimental OS kernel already have to use a more traditional system for a lot of things, and probably aren't a demographic too keen on DRM in the first place.

Re: Save Firefox

#38

Post by jflatow »

_nato_ wrote: post #34

Can someone clarify what is meant by `publisher' in this piece?

The parties which provide the content, often the one's who create it but not always. As opposed to the browser vendor, or the consumer (browser user).

Re: Save Firefox

#39

Post by jflatow »

mynameislegion wrote: post #35
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…

I've read many articles critical of EME and this is the first time I've heard this information. If true, as you said, it is THE issue. It was always my assumption that EME represented a standard way for CDM's to interact with the browser. EME is to CDMs as NPAPI is to plugins. That is to say, a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard. Is this assumption completely false?

I think the point is that to consume any particular piece of content, the publisher decides which CDM is appropriate, which effectively lets them decide who (which browser) can consume their content.

Re: Save Firefox

#40

Post by anexprogrammer »

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…

If FF had declined to put EME in the build (as many believed they should) then perhaps some pressure could have been brought to bear. At this stage, I don't think it matters who you email, it's done.
Post reply on HN