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

101–110 of 195 posts

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#101

Post by zanny »

mdeslaur wrote: post #37
nawitus wrote: post #7

>preventing users from saving the content How can an open source software prevent users from saving the content? If the CDM decrypts to plaintext, it should be trivial to modify the open source sandbox to save the plaintext data. (Obviously the software can prevent saving the content by default).

DRM is more about having leverage over the provider of the playback device and casual piracy than it is about protecting the content against hardcore piracy.

Hardcore pirates don't watch this BS, they just get the entire season off Piratebay in 4k with surround sound.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#102

Post by shmerl »

karussell wrote: post #99
shmerl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. My point is there is no need for such segmenting and overcharging those who want to see it more than once (except greed). Because there is no big difference in expenses for the distributor between these two use cases, except for the fact that the second can use the service more. But they already charge the monthly fee. Anyway, it's not even the case here! Netflix has no plans for purchasing, so there…

The same arguments you have for 'renting' apply for 'buying' software. Why has software a cost associated at all when the copy (to download) is produced via 0$? It doesn't make 'sense' too. Maybe in the very long term you are right and software as well as digital goods can be consumed for free (or via paying a special tax)

Lot's of software is sold without DRM just fine. So I don't understand what your point was. I never said about anything about getting all for free. The discussion was about that renting doesn't make sense for digital goods (buying does).

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#103

Post by wamatt »

shmerl wrote: post #84
eridius wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming that rentals don't make sense in the digital age is focusing far too heavily on the technical fact of how digital data works, and completely ignoring the legality of things, including intellectual property. If I make a movie and sell you a DVD, the terms of the sale prohibit you from, say, showing this movie in a theater to a bunch of strangers and charging them money. Yes, you own the physical DVD, but you…

> yes, you own the physical DVD, but you don't own the intellectual property of the movie itself. This holds true for physical copies, and it holds true for digital distribution as well. This is really irrelevant. When you buy a book you also own the book, and not the intellectual property it contains. Same thing with files - you can own the file, but not the intellectual property it represents. So legally nothing is…

"No, DRM can't enforce it (since this stuff is pirated practically instantaneously). So why is it used?"

Strongly suspect this is due to contractual obligations with the studios.

The agreements will almost certainly stipulate that content must be sufficiently protected. Hence Netflix plays ball, if it wants access.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#104

Post by atopal »

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…

  > in the meantime Firefox and Opera relied on the promise
  > and then were forced to start implementing support once
  > they realized Google was not going to keep the promise
  > and it was hurting them and then included support(I don't
  > think Opera ever did?).
Not only that, Mozilla partnered with CISCO to make h264 usage free for all. Now, people can modify and redistribute Firefox and still retain the ability to play h264. Something that Google gave a shit about when they included h264 in Chrome, but not in Chromium.

If you are using Chrome, don't fool yourself, you are not using an open source browser, but you are helping Google further the agenda of its stakeholders, and they made it clear what their priorties are when they took the first step by implementing this on Chromebooks.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#105

Post by shmerl »

wamatt wrote: post #103
shmerl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yes, you own the physical DVD, but you don't own the intellectual property of the movie itself. This holds true for physical copies, and it holds true for digital distribution as well. This is really irrelevant. When you buy a book you also own the book, and not the intellectual property it contains. Same thing with files - you can own the file, but not the intellectual property it represents. So legally nothing is…

"No, DRM can't enforce it (since this stuff is pirated practically instantaneously). So why is it used?" Strongly suspect this is due to contractual obligations with the studios. The agreements will almost certainly stipulate that content must be sufficiently protected. Hence Netflix plays ball, if it wants access.

My question "why" was not pointed at Netflix. It was pointed at publishers (studios, etc.) which demand that DRM. They have no valid answer for that question.

While Netfilx aren't an ideological champion for DRM, they are a huge proliferator of it. Compare it to distributors which sell only DRM-free content and actually attempt to influence publishers to sell through them (like GOG for games). Those are actually doing something good! Netflix just help to spread the sickness claiming that "they have no choice". But that's a poor excuse.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#106

Post by mixedbit »

mdeslaur wrote: post #37
nawitus wrote: post #7

>preventing users from saving the content How can an open source software prevent users from saving the content? If the CDM decrypts to plaintext, it should be trivial to modify the open source sandbox to save the plaintext data. (Obviously the software can prevent saving the content by default).

DRM is more about having leverage over the provider of the playback device and casual piracy than it is about protecting the content against hardcore piracy.

Which in reality translates to: DRM is about screwing honest users, pirates always find a way around it.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#108

Post by joncrocks »

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.

Think about winning the battle vs. winning the war.

Mozilla could draw a line here, and no further, and not implement EME. But the consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk."

Suddenly Mozilla lose a large amount of revenue, development is scaled back, and the relevance of FF is reduced. Eventually FF is marginalised and Mozilla no longer involved in discussions about the future of the web. I think everyone would be disappointed if that happened.

The issue here is that the W3C is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Laws passed by governments are in opposition to reality, and the only way to solve the problem at hand is security by obscurity and 'trusted' devices.

While it's noble of Mozilla to resist change of this type, it's fighting an uphill battle against legal precedents and legislation that is trickling down into technology. I don't think it's a battle that winnable until changes are made to IP frameworks the world over.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#109

Post by icebraining »

Cyclone_ wrote: post #69

Wonder what Brendan Eich would have thought of this.

Wonder no more: https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/

He said essentially the same thing; "We are working to get Mozilla and all our users on the right side of this proposed API. We are not just going to say that users cannot have access to streaming Hollywood movies, as that is a good way to lose market share and not have any product with which to uphold our mission."

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#110

Post by icebraining »

kipple wrote: post #107
pekk wrote: post #83

Mozilla can't hold the line on DRM. but Mozilla has no trouble holding the line on the Javascript monopoly.

Scuse my ignorance, which JS monopoly? What is Mozilla doing? I love mdn for my js reference needs, something to do with that?

I believe pekk's talking about not supporting any other client-side languages besides JavaScript (e.g. Dart, PNaCl, etc).
Post reply on HN