Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

andreasgal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 195 posts

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#41

Post by throwaway2048 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #32
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Replacing unsandboxed plugin APIs like NPAPI that can directly access the OS with sandboxed plugin systems like NaCl and emscripten that support sandboxed native code seems like a major improvement. Until you want to write a plugin with a legitimate reason to directly access the OS.

Legitimate reasons to directly access the OS are typically "there isn't a browser API for this yet". We have multiple Open Source browsers now; submit a patch to one or more of them to add a new API, and ideally start working to standardize it. The result will be far better and more secure than a one-off custom plugin to pass through specific OS functionality.

Yes, step right this way to begin the 10 year+ w3c standardization dance, with a high likelyhood that large vendors never implement the functionality anyways.

Web standards and the web standardization process are broken.

An example is webrtc, which was practically designed for webcam chat, yet this is still completely broken in a cross platform/browser context years after the fact.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#42

Post by davb »

abcd_f wrote: post #20

It is naive to expect that decrypted media stream will ever be leaving CDM module as so optimistically shown on that illustration. Microsoft dropped and neglected a bunch of great features when shipping Vista, but it went out of its way to drag Protected Media Path into it. PMP is fronting a major industry effort to create trusted software and hardware framework that on one end accepts encrypted stream and on other d…

This concerns me. Amazon Prime Instant Video requires HDCP via Silverlight. Support for this is pretty much non-existent in Linux drivers, so watching Prime video via Pipelight is limited to standard definition (no HD).

I worry that with EME/CDM will come a requirement for HDCP on other services such as Netflix. Inconsistent HDCP implementation will be another thing to fight on the video driver compatibility front (and let's be honest, I don't give a crap about HDCP support - it's a flawed system that assumes every user is a pirate).

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#43

Post by chimeracoder »

wfjackson wrote: post #17

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Google has been spending massively on pushing Chrome even bundled as default on new machines with OEM agreements t…

> Mozilla is pretty much powerless since users blame FF if it doesn't support something

Mozilla is pretty much powerless since users blame FF if it doesn't support something and the bulk of its funding comes from one of those corporate interests (Google).

(Both are problems - even if Mozilla had the market share, if it were still funded (almost) solely by Google, these things would still eventually happen, since the power tends to follow the money in the end.).

I really hope Mozilla manages to become financially independent of Google, whether through donations or some other revenue stream.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#44

Post by mindcrime »

smacktoward wrote: post #30
mindcrime wrote: post #4

and in the near future this should allow us to retire plugins altogether. I don't see this as a universally "Good Thing". The Web has evolved to a comprehensive and performant technology platform and no longer depends on native code extensions through plugins. You mean the Web has evolved into a Doctor Frankenstein's monster like hodge-podge of kluged together hacks, layered on top of layers of other hacks, layered o…

> You mean the Web has evolved into a Doctor Frankenstein's monster like hodge-podge of kluged together hacks, layered on top of layers of other hacks, layered on top of still more hacks So it's like every other successful platform in history, then.

You make a good point. :-)

Somehow it seems worse with the Web to me though, but maybe that's just because it's so ubiquitous and used for such a variety of things.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#45

Post by josephlord »

So the open source wrapper can receive unencrypted audio/video frames. Does that mean it does the video decoding too or does it get the compressed stream back?

Either way it doesn't sound like a very strong protection of the content as you can access it with at most a single generation compression loss.

Is it me or are the content providers and the DRM providers realising the limits of DRM and loosening their requirements?

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#47

Post by davexunit »

ygjb wrote: post #40
davexunit wrote: post #34

>We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM. Then so be it. If Mozilla's mission is to improve and defend the "open" web, then EME should never have been considered for implementation. They shouldn't sacrifice their goals for the sake of market share.

Improving and defending the open web is not just about fighting the good fight on DRM. The Mozilla mission also calls for us to fight for users right to make choices[0] as well. Mozilla could choose not to implement EME, and draw that line in the sand, but that means denying users the option of continuing to use Firefox to access content they choose to access . My preference (both as a long time Firefox user, and a M…

Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing. You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content! Just because users want Netflix in Firefox doesn't mean that it's the right thing to provide.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#48

Post by penguindev »

abcd_f wrote: post #20

It is naive to expect that decrypted media stream will ever be leaving CDM module as so optimistically shown on that illustration. Microsoft dropped and neglected a bunch of great features when shipping Vista, but it went out of its way to drag Protected Media Path into it. PMP is fronting a major industry effort to create trusted software and hardware framework that on one end accepts encrypted stream and on other d…

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Insider#INTEL-INSIDER

DRM inside Intel CPUs.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#49

Post by gsnedders »

wfjackson wrote: post #17

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Google has been spending massively on pushing Chrome even bundled as default on new machines with OEM agreements t…

Opera still doesn't ship H.264 support, except on mobile and some embedded products (TVs, settop boxes, etc.).

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#50

Post by dragonwriter »

davexunit wrote: post #47
ygjb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Improving and defending the open web is not just about fighting the good fight on DRM. The Mozilla mission also calls for us to fight for users right to make choices[0] as well. Mozilla could choose not to implement EME, and draw that line in the sand, but that means denying users the option of continuing to use Firefox to access content they choose to access . My preference (both as a long time Firefox user, and a M…

Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing. You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content! Just because users want Netflix in Firefox doesn't mean that it's the right thing to provide.

> Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing.

You should support (not promote) doing it within Firefox if you want users to continue to use Firefox; you could even do so with a UI that provided security warnings associated with the use of W3C EME, which would discourage users from doing it, but not make Firefox an non-usable browser for people who do choose to consume that kind of content.

Post reply on HN