Live data from Hacker News

Save Firefox

eff.org

121–130 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#121

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.

> Recording that isn't a right, legal or moral

Recording a netflix show so I can watch it later doesn't seem like at all a moral issue, so long as I keep my subscription.

Adding DRM also gives them the "You had to break DRM to do this" which is a handy argument to have.

Re: Save Firefox

#122
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix already has their own Windows desktop app: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...

So why corrupt the Web? Why not just tell people to install the app?

First, the app only works on Windows 8/8.1/10 and a lot of people are still running earlier versions of Windows.

Second, many of the people running Windows 8/8.1/10 know so little about apps that they're "against" them.

Re: Save Firefox

#123

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.…

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.

We should have prevented it in the first place, but given recent quasi-legal expansions centered around legal vagaries of it, I would completely agree we need to revamp and revisit laws relating to computing.

Re: Save Firefox

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

some examples, por favor?

Vivaldi?

Vivaldi is (a) new; (b) based on Chromium; and (c) not actually open source. (I use both Vivaldi and Firefox, but not Chrome.)

Historically, Firefox has been the main user-entered browser, but not the only one. Especially if you include forks.

Re: Save Firefox

#125
post #43

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).

Out of curiosity, what's your proposal for enforcing rental contract business rules on a viewer's device?

Content providers see DRM as an implementation of a movie ticket system. You know, walls, doors and a doorman that kick you out after the movie is over. Also far from honour system.

Re: Save Firefox

#126
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…

Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, it seems counter to W3C's intended purpose of promoting open web standards.

Re: Save Firefox

#127
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I go to a page with a video on it that uses flash, the rest of the page works just fine if I don't have the flash plugin installed. This is identical behavior to not having the CDM. If the rest of the page also uses flash, that's entirely separate. It is even possible that the rest of the page could be flash, while playing a video with either the native tag or through a CDM. Integration between the video and the r…

I grant you that the point is largely video, and I probably made a poor choice to reference other things happening on the page, but even within purely the video playback, a CDM is hands down far less proprietary code than a plugin like Flash which not only is poorly optimized for any given browser, but also introduces a whole host of other issues which a CDM doesn't get anywhere near (eg. flash cookies).

The rest of your comment is just straight up offensive zealotry. Spare me the ideological rants and go re-read my opening comment carefully. I spent the first 7 years fighting against DRM in direct conversation with rights holders. I have signed deals with hundreds of small distributors to stream content without DRM. I have done more for the cause of avoiding DRM in practice than a million EFF press releases which do nothing but preach to the choir. Furthermore, I am not building DRM, I am only implementing existing industry-standard DRM as required by studios. I can choose not to do so, in which case I won't get the content I need to build a viable business, and then I will go out of business, but the status quo will not have changed.

This nonsense about me forcing you to run code on your computer without your approval is asinine. I am not forcing you to run anything, run what you want, but I'm not allowed to stream certain content to you without it, that is beyond my control. If you only want unencumbered content, then don't use my service. This is not the same class of issue as nerfed hardware like John Deere. Like it or not, there is a legitimate reason for legal copyright which is inherently different from property rights, and conflating the two completely undermines any legitimate point which you might wish to make.

Re: Save Firefox

#128
post #109
post #27

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 o…

>Uncheck "Play DRM content". You need to turn this on about:config browser.eme.ui.enabled true to allow the checkbox to be displayed. FF 46.0.1 OS X.

I didn't have to turn this on. It's in Content section by default...

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm

media.eme.enabled to false to disable EME if you want to tweak the config.

Re: Save Firefox

#129
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I go to a page with a video on it that uses flash, the rest of the page works just fine if I don't have the flash plugin installed. This is identical behavior to not having the CDM. If the rest of the page also uses flash, that's entirely separate. It is even possible that the rest of the page could be flash, while playing a video with either the native tag or through a CDM. Integration between the video and the r…

> Was the delusion that you're protecting anything worth

Dude, that's just not how you make friends and influence people. He knows all the arguments, he said it. Wouldn't it be more interesting to try to find with him a way we can all work together towards a better future, without attempting to shame the counterpart into a public admission of moral failure which will, of course, never happen?

That's why Linux has been successful: beyond the zealots, there were significant amounts of people (including Torvalds) who did not ask anyone to repent their proprietary sins before joining. "We build A, you build B, let's see if we can make something together which is a bit more like A, because we honestly think A is awesome, but hey, we like your B as well! It's just that we cannot help you if you keep it to yourself..."

The thing is, "we" are currently not building anything that might allay studios' fears. "We" don't even understand those fears, or choose to disregard them entirely. Of course they'll go out and do their own thing. If there was a safe way to deliver what they want (encrypted tamper-proof streaming) in an open-source package, they would likely consider it. But there isn't, afaik. Are "we" building it? No, we try to slut-shame "them" into giving up. That ain't gonna work, when there are billion of dollars and millions of jobs at risk.

Re: Save Firefox

#130
post #68

Isn't it trivial to reverse engineer the DRM module to create its clean room open source implementation thus effectively deprecating it?

And then it's trivial for the DRM creator to sue you under the DMCA. I also suspect that CDMs can update (this is called "renewability" in DRM newspeak).

If the reversing and reimplementation happens outside of the US you can avoid the DMCA issue entirely. Or take steps to publish anonymously.
Post reply on HN