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

81–90 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#81

Post by jflatow »

Klathmon wrote: post #72
jflatow wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, historically all those mechanisms have been problems for the open web. To me, the question is why you couldn't achieve the same thing without making the CDM a blackbox, e.g. just by issuing license keys and standardizing the encryption/decryption of content. It seems like the only benefit to making CDMs blackboxes is that it gives publishers more control over the user's environment.

Re: Save Firefox

#82

Post by zeveb »

0x0 wrote: post #26

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.

If Firefox really cared about its users maybe it shouldn't have broken the security of Firefox Accounts and Sync. It used to be secure; it no longer is.

Re: Save Firefox

#83

Post by tremon »

Karunamon wrote: post #17
MajesticHobo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

See, and that's the problem with implementations like this. Recording this is perfectly legal in NL.

Re: Save Firefox

#84

Post by throwaway2048 »

nwah1 wrote: post #19
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.

You make it sound like other browser vendors fought it at all, the EME spec was written by Google, and supported by microsoft and apple.

This is not a case of the w3c "forcing standards" upon innocent browsers. The people writing w3c standards work for these companies.

Re: Save Firefox

#85

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Save Firefox

#86

Post by nemothekid »

tremon wrote: post #62
dtech wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Problem is that Netflix & co are stuck with Flash or similar because content owners will not allow it to be streamed/provided without DRM That's the content owners' problem, not Netflix&co. Let others produce open content that does work with an open web, and let's see how long the content owners will stay unmoved.

>Let's see how long the content owners will stay unmoved.

They won't - Netflix isn't the only platform, just the largest - and compared to its competition its being rather altruistic in this situation.

The content owners will more likely decide to license less content to Netflix (to Netflix's credit, they are trying to depend less on other's people content) - but will license that will play ball. And the content owners do have a place to go, HBO GO/Now's platform being the first I can think of.

Re: Save Firefox

#87

Post by severine »

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…

What's the endgame? Free OSes "banned" from the "open web"?

Re: Save Firefox

#88

Post by dasil003 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #78
dasil003 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because everything else happening on the page is still regular web stuff, not encapsulated in a proprietary plugin like Flash. Essentially much smaller surface area of proprietary stuff, and because each browser only implements one CDM and they are responsible for the integration it doesn't break as much the way that Flash increasingly did over time.

Re: Save Firefox

#89

Post by gshulegaard »

dtech wrote: post #32
gshulegaard wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This whole area is a little murky but I want to point out that Netflix has supported HTML5 video for a while: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742. Using EME no less (http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/12/html5-video-is-now-suppo...)

I was mostly trying to point out that the previous comment was referring to Flash and Silverlight as if they weren't fading/phased out technologies (which they are as I understood it).

As far as DRM goes, the whole thing is sticky, but I am mostly against this adoption to W3 since in its current purposed state, it seems too far counter to the open ideals of what the W3 should embody.

To clarify: I am not against DRM, I am against DRM that allows publishers to dictate consumer behavior (such as what browser can play the content) and I think EME puts too much power unrelated to DRM back in the hands of the publishers.

But I might be wrong.

Re: Save Firefox

#90

Post by nemothekid »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #31
bla2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

>Netflix wouldn't go away; millions of people would complain if it stopped working.

The Media industry would likely rally behind a platform that decided to play ball (like HBO Go), which would then implement some frankenstein DRM solution. "Get rid of plugins and the studios will adopt non-DRM solutions" seems about as useful as "Get rid of Limewire and people will stop pirating."

Post reply on HN