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

161–170 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#161

Post by JBReefer »

icebraining wrote: post #113
throwaway2048 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It dosent get rid of the "1000s of adhoc plugins" problem whatsoever, CDMs (the thing EME is merely a bridge to) are platform specific, closed source, arbitrary blobs of code that can do anything on the host system, you do not target "EME" as a streaming host you target these CDMs.

As I pointed out above, on Firefox they can't "do anything on the host system" as they'll be sandboxed and allowed only the necessary mechanisms to do their job.

They can't call out at all? I have doubts, but would accept a source.

Re: Save Firefox

#162

Post by gajjanag »

rayiner wrote: post #149
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…

If you don't want DRM, don't watch media that requires DRM. Nobody is making you use it. It's something you use because want to use Netflix, etc.

Exactly. What I have found is that when I examine deeply enough, most DRM content is not even worth it, and even for purely entertainment purposes, there exist plenty of non DRM solutions: movie theaters, libraries, outdoor activities to name just a few. I found Michael Niedermayer's quote very nice in this regard: "Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway" (https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-January/18824...).

And if you really don't even want to accidentally support or open such DRM content, you can configure the browser appropriately (media.eme.enabled and --disable-eme in Firefox).

Re: Save Firefox

#163

Post by Endy »

RubyPinch wrote: post #4
neurobuddha wrote: post #3

Doesn't Mozilla have a lucrative deal with Yahoo? I mean Yahoo!

yeah but so? from my read-through, its not literally "save the one and only firefox", its "we need an environment that allows for other browsers to enter the field" which DRM prevents

It really should be "Save Mozilla", not Save Firefox. After all, it was Mozilla that changed the web. We should all be using SeaMonkey, or some other coherent suite.

Re: Save Firefox

#164

Post by zanny »

bla2 wrote: post #25
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…

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 (…

It is only inevitable insofar as the old open web was incompatible with proprietary DRM. The real ethical answer would have been for the W3C and browser ecosystem to ignore the MAFIAA and let them flounder without baked in user freedom destroying DRM.

They would have to start shipping their own proprietary apps to support their DRM, which is how things should have been. Browers could have gotten rid of plugins without DRM by forcing the old publishers to not be able to operate exclusively through web sites.

Re: Save Firefox

#165

Post by jflatow »

jflatow wrote: post #131
Klathmon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

EDIT: What I failed to realize is that unlike other content, in the case of DRM, publishers do not even trust the user.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11680863

Re: Save Firefox

#166

Post by eridius »

drewcrawford wrote: post #79
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 mu…

Everybody loves to bring up MP3s as an argument in favor of the notion that, if someone stands up to DRM, the entire industry will shift to no longer require DRM. And that's complete bullshit. You're extrapolating a very extreme position from a single instance, one that is arguably unique.

Not only that, but it's also wrong. Music DRM did not die. DRM on purchased music went away, but streaming music still has DRM. So the music industry didn't even completely ditch DRM like you claim it did.

Re: Save Firefox

#167

Post by epmatsw »

wahsd wrote: post #95

I just found out that Firefox removed the 3D Inspector with v.47. It's a shame because that was an excellent tool for auditing and inspecting. If you haven't had the chance, give it a whirl.

It was a neat tool for sure, but apparently did not work in multi-process Firefox. Guess it wasn't used enough to merit a rewrite.

Re: Save Firefox

#169

Post by rpgmaker »

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…

> No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no leverage on rights holders. I

That's completely false. What would rights holders do if no browser supported their DRM extension? Stop streaming altogether? Browser makers just didn't want this fight because most of them have online streaming ventures of their own.

Post reply on HN