Save Firefox • Hacker News Board

Re: Save Firefox

#41

Post by mark_l_watson » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:00 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #8

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…

That goes without saying. I don't think EFF encourages anyone to use DRMed services, quite the opposite.

I didn't know that. I think that Netflix, Google Play Movies, etc. are the only valid use for DRM: high value content that is rented.

Types of DRM that are bad magazines this is just my opinion, are eBooks, music, etc. that are purchased.

I donate a few times a year to EFF and FSF. I think there are occasions when DRM is OK, and even though I almost exclusively use Linux laptops (just converted my last Mac to Linux this week) other people using proprietary software does not much bother me.

Re: Save Firefox

#42

Post by k-mcgrady » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:00 PM UTC

Honestly, I'm not against online/streaming content being protected with DRM. I don't think it's very effective but it doesn't effect me as I don't own the content so I don't really care.

This seems to be a step to far though. The browser should be a standards based 'viewer' that anyone with the will and the time can create. Let's say Netflix implements this DRM. They account for more than a third of internet traffic. If your browser can't support Netflix it's dead in the water.

This is open to so much abuse. The gatekeepers (it seems to be the entertainment companies in this case) get to choose which browsers live and die. As we've seen over the last 20 years competition in the browser space is very important - without Mozilla stepping up and competing with IE I can't imagine the sorry state the internet would be in today.

Edit: Once again, the DMCA rears it's ugly head. Time and again it seems to be the thing that is abused to screw over consumers. Maybe that's what we should actually be fighting against.

Re: Save Firefox

#43

Post by shmerl » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #41

shmerl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That goes without saying. I don't think EFF encourages anyone to use DRMed services, quite the opposite.

I didn't know that. I think that Netflix, Google Play Movies, etc. are the only valid use for DRM: high value content that is rented. Types of DRM that are bad magazines this is just my opinion, are eBooks, music, etc. that are purchased. I donate a few times a year to EFF and FSF. I think there are occasions when DRM is OK, and even though I almost exclusively use Linux laptops (just converted my last Mac to Linux t…

There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).

Re: Save Firefox

#44

Post by azakai » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

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…

> The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have.

And you greatly underestimate it. Look at the history of DRM in music.

Re: Save Firefox

#45

Post by mynameislegion » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

jflatow wrote: post #39

mynameislegion wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the assumption I'm describing, it's irrelevant which CDM a publisher chooses. The reason being that the CDM must operate via EME, an open standard that can be implemented by any browser. Therefore, CDMs are inherently browser agnostic just like NPAPI plugins.

Is it really true that CDMs are actually browser-specific or are able to enforce a browser whitelist? If so, that is horrific.

Re: Save Firefox

#46

Post by jgon » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

anexprogrammer wrote: post #40

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.

Incorrect. If Firefox had not put it in, nothing would have happened because programmers have (largely) decided to give chrome a majority market-share amongst them, and advocate it to their non-technical peers, increasing its market share amongst that group as well.

If programmers actually used firefox and advocated it to the point where it had a majority market share then maybe their refusal would carry some weight.

But as it stands the web dev community has said loud and clear what their priorities are, and this is just a natural consequence of that.

Re: Save Firefox

#47

Post by azakai » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

anexprogrammer wrote: post #40

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.

It doesn't have to be. If consumers stop using EME-supporters' browsers, things can change quickly.

We have the power, but sadly not the will.

Re: Save Firefox

#48

Post by takeda » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

jflatow wrote: post #30

dasil003 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe this is also reason why Google, Microsoft, Netflix all support EME.

It essentially makes it harder for new competitors to emerge.

Re: Save Firefox

#49

Post by mark_l_watson » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #43

mark_l_watson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that. I think that Netflix, Google Play Movies, etc. are the only valid use for DRM: high value content that is rented. Types of DRM that are bad magazines this is just my opinion, are eBooks, music, etc. that are purchased. I donate a few times a year to EFF and FSF. I think there are occasions when DRM is OK, and even though I almost exclusively use Linux laptops (just converted my last Mac to Linux t…

There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).

I mostly agree with you, and I think we are largely on the same side, but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different. That said, I would be very happy if there were no DRM in the world, and I would just go to the movie theater to see new movies.

I was the featured Creative Commoner many years ago, and I appreciate a world where Creative Commons licenses are used and mostly libre software is used, but while I can afford to release a book under CC, which I have done a few times, a movie studio that drops 100M making a film can not use CC.

Re: Save Firefox

#50

Post by kevincox » Wed, May 11, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #42

Honestly, I'm not against online/streaming content being protected with DRM. I don't think it's very effective but it doesn't effect me as I don't own the content so I don't really care. This seems to be a step to far though. The browser should be a standards based 'viewer' that anyone with the will and the time can create. Let's say Netflix implements this DRM. They account for more than a third of internet traffic.…

I don't have any problems with the concept of DRM (controlling how a movie is used) but I have major issues with what is required to implement it. Essentially by definition you need to run some code that the user doesn't control on their computer. How Firefox does it isn't that bad because it is fairly well sandboxed but over time the urge will be to push it further up the stack so that gaining access to the content becomes more and more difficult.

I suspect give enough time they will push until they close the Analog Loophole.