The handwringing over this strikes me as extreme. Mozilla already ships with the ability for users to enable closed-source, proprietary DRM schemes to view web content -- the Flash and Silverlight plugins. Moving from the current regime of Flash/Silverlight to the EME is a move towards openness, not away from it -- the DRM scheme is still closed, but the content itself is more open and standard than before, as you're no longer tying yourself to Flash's implementation of video streaming.
DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
11–20 of 77 posts
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#12This is incredibly shameful. It's now only a matter of time before images, CSS, JavaScript, hell, even the text, are delivered through OS-specific, locked down CDMs. It will start with pissant sites nobody cares about (like the ones who are currently fighting AdBlock), but eventually a large site will demand it - most users will be using a device that handles this, and we will literally never have the Open Web ever a…
Mozilla is working very hard to limit the DRM to Video.
This matches what has happened in practice over the years. Ads and entertainment have been packaged up in Flash with DRM. EME paves that cowpath.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.
DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.
That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.
That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
No, DRM does not enable the service because it's not an essential part of it. The service could work without DRM all the same while being ethical and more user friendly at the same time. DRM is like a sickness attached to an otherwise healthy product. It only becomes better when you remove it.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.
That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
> I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
That's quite a false dichotomy, since the service clearly can exist independently of DRM (both technically and economically).
Furthermore, this dichotomy doesn't work either in your analogy (there are ads on the subway, and yet I still have to pay) or in the real case we're talking about (Hulu+ is paid service locked down by DRM, and it still shows advertisements).
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
No, DRM does not enable the service because it's not an essential part of it. The service could work without DRM all the same while being ethical and more user friendly at the same time. DRM is like a sickness attached to an otherwise healthy product. It only becomes better when you remove it.
That's like saying the subway turnstile isn't an essential part of the subway. It's only true if you define "essential" in a narrow technical way that ignores the realities of having to monetize the use of products and services.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#17> . We face a choice between a feature our users want and the degree to which that feature can be built to embody user control and privacy. It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM). > Firefox users would need to use another browser every ti…
> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.
I also love being able to pay Apple money in exchange for DRM-free music. Also, DRM on video is approximately 0-efficient; pirates will still rip movies and upload them to torrent sites, freeloaders will still find free low-quality streaming movie sites, and the majority of non-technical users wouldn't be able to rip streaming video even without DRM.
So: NO.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#18Mozilla should implement the closed-source portion as an official addon. They can give the user a choice to include it or not during the installation. Maybe this is what they're doing; their post wasn't completely clear on that.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...
> I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride... That's quite a false dichotomy, since the service clearly can exist independently of DRM (both technically and economically). Furthermore, this dichotomy doesn't work either in your analogy (there are ads on the subway, and yet I still have to pay) or in th…
I don't think Netflix, Amazon Video, etc, which don't show advertisements, could exist economically without DRM.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, DRM does not enable the service because it's not an essential part of it. The service could work without DRM all the same while being ethical and more user friendly at the same time. DRM is like a sickness attached to an otherwise healthy product. It only becomes better when you remove it.
That's like saying the subway turnstile isn't an essential part of the subway. It's only true if you define "essential" in a narrow technical way that ignores the realities of having to monetize the use of products and services.
> realities of having to monetize the use of products and services.
Essential means technically and financially essential. I.e. without it the service can't work or can't bring profit. DRM is neither of that. Those who require DRM [publishers] have no technical or financial reasons to justify it. No valid ones at least (all reasons they usually voice are false, and their true reasons they usually don't voice).