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

131–140 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#131

Post by jflatow »

Klathmon wrote: post #91
jflatow wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looking at that from a publishers perspective... That locks me in to your encryption system, and probably locks me into other things as a result. That also doesn't give me the ability to enforce other DRM things like only one playback per device, or only allowing it to happen between 7am and 7pm, it also means that i need to trust the client, whih is exactly what DRM is trying to not do (because if the publishers cou…

We know that this is something the publisher's want. That doesn't mean CDM functionality can't be standardized. It doesn't need to be a black box, and you don't need to trust the client any more than you trust the user.

The point EFF is making is that its up to the W3C to maintain the balance between the power of publishers and the freedom of users.

Re: Save Firefox

#132

Post by fpgaminer »

Media DRM is not and never was primarily designed to prevent piracy. Rather, DRM is used by content producers (Fox, Disney, Warner, etc) to assert control over the rest of vertical market. This article is a prime example of this. Thanks to DRM the movie studios force browser vendors to sign agreements to get access to the CDM, and from that agreement they can assert control. They can subtly suggest, for example, "Hey, Mozilla, could you revamp your plugin API to make blocking ads harder? It's fine if you don't, but, oh, by the way, your CDM agreement expires next month. Looking forward to seeing you at the re-negotiation meeting."

The same thing goes for encryption on Blu-ray discs, which forces Blu-ray player manufacturers to sign agreements with them. HDCP on HDMI and DisplayPort asserts control over TV manufacturers and infests video cards.

This is the same industry that pushed the DMCA on us, extends copyright in perpetuity, sues families because their kid downloaded an MP3, would like nothing more than SOPA to pass, etc, etc.

I know that the comments here like to demonize Google, Microsoft, Netflix, etc. Honestly, I don't believe it's their fault; Netflix in particular. Netflix is in no position to fight this. If they say no, the media empire will pull all their licenses and the company will collapse. And Netflix is already fighting for its life against these same companies for net neutrality (the major ISPs are owned by the media empire...). Google is leashed by its need for advertising revenue. Microsoft is beholden to its customers, who want access to DRM'd content.

In other words, we shouldn't be taking our fight to the W3C, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, etc. The media empire is the real enemy here. And there's hope. The rise of cheap, digital cameras and distribution platforms like YouTube and Twitch have enabled a wide array of independent artists to create AAA content mostly unbeholden to the incumbent media giants. Some of the best and most entertaining content I've watched has come from Patreon funded YouTubers. If that was the only content that the world watched, the media empire would starve and whither away, and DRM along with them.

Re: Save Firefox

#133

Post by stcredzero »

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…

Instead of attempting to fight a self-harming losing battle, I wish the EFF would focus on the real problem which is the DMCA's overreach.

I have heard that this is too high a hurdle. Why is that?

Re: Save Firefox

#134

Post by caf »

mynameislegion wrote: post #110
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?

That assumption may indeed be false. See here[0] in the FAQ "What does this mean for downstream users of the Firefox code base?" >>> The solution consists of three parts: the browser, the CDM host and the CDM. >>> However, the CDM will refuse to work if it finds itself in a host that isn’t identical to the Mozilla-shipped CDM host executable. At first, I interpreted this to mean Mozilla, not Adobe, had implemented th…

...and this - I guess - is where the DMCA issue that the EFF raises comes in.

Because sure, you could build a browser that loads Adobe's CRM and fools it into thinking it's been loaded into Firefox - but if you did that, you could well be construed as defeating a technological copyright protection method.

Re: Save Firefox

#135

Post by stcredzero »

scholia wrote: post #122
wmf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Why not port it to Windows 7?

Re: Save Firefox

#136

Post by simoncion »

dasil003 wrote: post #127
pdkl95 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ...a CDM is hands down far less proprietary code than a plugin like Flash

Sure, but it still relies a binary blob, just like Flash.

> ...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.

Don't forget the story of how Apple forced the music industry into abandoning DRM on their "high-value intellectual property".

Had Google, Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft all refused to play ball, and also continued to push towards the removal of Flash and Silverlight from the web, we would likely soon be seeing either the same abandonment of DRM'd streaming video, or the abandonment of streaming video by the major studios (and subsequent void filling by smaller players).

Re: Save Firefox

#137

Post by CaptSpify »

Ileca wrote: post #128
yborg wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I had to turn it on: 45.0.2 on Linux

Re: Save Firefox

#138

Post by jflatow »

takeda wrote: post #48
jflatow wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would be consistent, and relates to the main question I have: Why does the CDM need to be a blackbox? Couldn't the decryption be standardized with all proprietary information boiling down to secret license keys?

Re: Save Firefox

#139

Post by jeena »

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…

I never understood why it needed to be build into the browser, why isn't Netflix just a (native) app like Popcorn Time?

Re: Save Firefox

#140

Post by CaptSpify »

Karunamon wrote: post #112
drewcrawford wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mu…

No it wouldn't have - we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user. Furthermore, you imply a level of informal cooperation between the browser vendors that doesn't exist. It turns into a game of prisoners dilemma, where the first person to defect gets to claim a massive feature that none of the others do…

> we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user.

And this is how it should be. I want users to get tired of installing more plugins. I want them to roll their eyes when a site says "you need to do add $x to be able to use this site." We had the same problems with mp3's, and we won out. I see no reason we can't win out with any other media.

Post reply on HN