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

71–80 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#71

Post by throwaway2048 »

Klathmon wrote: post #53
mynameislegion wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. As far as I knew, EME was the solution to the problem they were talking about. A standard way to allow anyone to run one of those CDMs and removing the publishers as the gatekeepers.

its a standard for the sites themselves to run a certain CDM, its totally unspecified on the browser side

IE, firefox cannot use google sandvine, even if you have chrome installed, because it is not a standard interface from the browser's perspective.

CDMs are absolutely not browser agnostic like NPAPI.

Re: Save Firefox

#72

Post by Klathmon »

jflatow wrote: post #63
k-mcgrady wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not 100% clear on the technical side of this but according to the article, in order to implement the 'standard' you require permission from the entertainment companies as they control the CDM. So they're the gatekeepers. Is this incorrect?

Yes I think it works like this: publisher decides CDM, and EME describes a standard interface for all CDMs. The trick, which EFF points out, is that CDMs are allowed to be blackboxes, and publishers can create their own and distribute them any way they see fit, which effectively lets them determine which browsers may consume their content.

But no matter what they can decide that already...

User agent checking (and other fingerprint checking systems), custom plugins which are required, or even going around the browser entirely and requiring a downloadable program or app to playback.

If the standard doesn't have EME, then alternatives will be made which will be much worse. EME is the best possible outcome in a world where DRM exists, and I would be just as happy as everyone else here if DRM was gone entirely, that just isn't going to happen any time soon.

Re: Save Firefox

#73

Post by cpeterso »

Klathmon wrote: post #56
JoshTriplett wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wo…

They 100% would "build their own browser" in the form of custom apps. Hell they already do on just about every platform except desktop...

Netflix already has their own Windows desktop app:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...

Re: Save Firefox

#74

Post by Klathmon »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #71
Klathmon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. As far as I knew, EME was the solution to the problem they were talking about. A standard way to allow anyone to run one of those CDMs and removing the publishers as the gatekeepers.

its a standard for the sites themselves to run a certain CDM, its totally unspecified on the browser side IE, firefox cannot use google sandvine, even if you have chrome installed, because it is not a standard interface from the browser's perspective. CDMs are absolutely not browser agnostic like NPAPI.

EME is the standardized specification on the browser side... That's all it is.

CDMs could technically only work for one browser via fingerprinting, but that could already happen without EME (or DRM entorely) using browser fingerprinting to only serve content to UAs the publishers "trust".

Re: Save Firefox

#75

Post by xori »

I'm interested to see how effective the EME is to prevent illicit copying of media. YouTube and Netflix both use DRM now but it doesn't stop youtube-dl or pirate WEB-DL rips from netflix from existing.

Re: Save Firefox

#77

Post by dasil003 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #60
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…

EME is not even a complete standard, its basically just a shim to bridge in a closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform, and needs specific DRM module support from providers. You cant just target EME as Netflix, or some other streaming site, you have to target Google Widevine, or Apple Fairplay etc. Implementing EME in no way enables you to use these DRM technologies, so its a 100% wo…

Yes, having spent the last decade founding and building a premium content streaming service I am well aware of what EME is and how the CDMs work. It is infinitely preferable to a proprietary plugin.

Re: Save Firefox

#78

Post by throwaway2048 »

dasil003 wrote: post #77
throwaway2048 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EME is not even a complete standard, its basically just a shim to bridge in a closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform, and needs specific DRM module support from providers. You cant just target EME as Netflix, or some other streaming site, you have to target Google Widevine, or Apple Fairplay etc. Implementing EME in no way enables you to use these DRM technologies, so its a 100% wo…

Yes, having spent the last decade founding and building a premium content streaming service I am well aware of what EME is and how the CDMs work. It is infinitely preferable to a proprietary plugin.

How? It is totally inoperable without a proprietary plugin backing it up.

Re: Save Firefox

#79

Post by drewcrawford »

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…

The unsupported assertion that a DRM-free universe "is not realistic" is not an argument, even when it is repeated for emphasis in italics.

In the music industry, DRM seemed inevitable until one morning Steve Jobs woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Then the whole thing crumbled overnight.

iTunes was not "pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access". Users did prefer to buy DRM-free music, bolstering iTunes marketshare in the process. The historical record demonstrates the opposite of your hypothetical.

If Chrome or Safari drew a line in the sand and said "No DRM", that would be the end of DRM on the web. It seems they are not willing to do that. But that is a reflection on the lack of leadership at the technology companies, not on the inevitability of DRM.

Re: Save Firefox

#80

Post by tremon »

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…

it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins

The thousand ad-hoc plugins would have been the better solution. We should be striving to make DRM as expensive for the producer and troublesome for the user as possible.

Post reply on HN