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

131–140 of 195 posts

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#131

Post by shmerl »

icebraining wrote: post #127
shmerl wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the situation with studios having crazy demands. My question was equally addressed to their reasoning. And I don't agree in general that Netflix has no way to improve things. Distributors have more influence on publishers than single users. I already wrote elsewhere about GOG. They work with gaming publishers and convince them that DRM is never needed. And it works. Not always, but with some of them. The…

There's a reason why the games on the front page of GOG are Deus Ex and Beyond Good and Evil, and not the latest edition of Call of Duty. GOG sells old games, which are much past their prime time, and people don't play old games nearly as much as they watch old films and even shows. Not that Netflix doesn't have influence, of course, but it's still far from being their decision.

No, GOG don't sell just old games only. They changed their strategy a few years ago. They work with publishers on getting new games and successfully (for example Deep Silver). It's a tedious process, but they put an effort into it and it produces results. They gave a few interviews about this in the past. How they have meetings with publishers who ask for graphs, stats and other information in order to decide whether to go with DRM-free or not. It shows that not all of them are lacking common sense. When they are convinced that it only helps their business - things start moving.

With more data to back up their approach GOG have more arguments for these publishers. So the more this grows, the easier it becomes. I wish some distributor would do the same thing for video.

May be gaming is in better shape because there is a higher percentage of good quality indie games than indie films. Independent studios are usually more sensible and don't care about DRM. GOG have that as a base for their statistics. With movies that must be harder, since there aren't that many good quality indie films.

However going back to the "old games" point. If it's easier with old games, what about old films? I don't see any DRM-free distribution for those either.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#132

Post by shmerl »

icebraining wrote: post #128
shmerl wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engaging in proliferating an unethical practice under pretense that "they have no choice" is a very questionable thing. Netflix had a choice, but they chose to do this.

No argument there, I was just replying to your question. You're right that Netflix had the choice of not existing.

Rather the choice of doing something else which doesn't involve unethical practices.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#133

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#134

Post by icebraining »

kipple wrote: post #130
icebraining wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was under the impression this is true of all browsers, don't all client-side languages like Dart or TypeScript compile to JS before they can be run?

No, Chrome has supported PNaCl natively since version 31. And they already have a fork of Chromium with a native Dart VM.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#135

Post by Locke1689 »

shmerl wrote: post #75
nileshtrivedi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would renting cost any different than buying? So that you can segment the buyers into two: Those who want to see a movie only once and those who want to see it more than once. This way, you can double charge the second segment and use those funds to reduce the price for the first segment. Classic market segmentation. As long as there are customers of both kind, rentals (even for digital goods) will make sense.

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…

"greed"

You mean profit? The reason that businesses exist? That is, the distinction that is literally in the description of for-profit corporations?

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#136

Post by icebraining »

shmerl wrote: post #132
icebraining wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No argument there, I was just replying to your question. You're right that Netflix had the choice of not existing.

Rather the choice of doing something else which doesn't involve unethical practices.

Yes, I'm sure the people would be doing something else. I was just talking about the company, which would have no reason to exist.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#137

Post by angersock »

joncrocks wrote: post #108
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 t…

But the consequence might be that FF market share drop significantly, as "Mah netflicks don't werk."

Then maybe those users deserve the loss of their freedoms.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#138

Post by shmerl »

Locke1689 wrote: post #135
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…

"greed" You mean profit? The reason that businesses exist? That is, the distinction that is literally in the description of for-profit corporations?

Profit and greed are not the same thing. Greed means overcharging for no reason besides wanting to overcharge. I.e. ripping users off for the sake of it. Usually it's possible only when competition is weak. Otherwise customers would just walk away to the competitors. In the case of DRM in video, publishers are a tight conglomerate and there is little disruption there. So they enjoy all kind of sick idiocy they can force on users who buy their stuff.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#139

Post by shmerl »

icebraining wrote: post #136
shmerl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather the choice of doing something else which doesn't involve unethical practices.

Yes, I'm sure the people would be doing something else. I was just talking about the company, which would have no reason to exist.

They could exist trying to concentrate on DRM-free distribution. Others managed that: https://www.headweb.com/en/

Of course it wouldn't have the same scale. But we aren't talking about scale - you mentioned existence as if selling something DRM-free is not possible or not sustainable.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#140

Post by phillc73 »

Ygg2 wrote: post #57
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.

You think most users will care if it ships EME or no? Like seriously?! I'd love to live in that world. Basically if Netflix doesn't work with Mozilla who's gonna be blamed? Netflix that works on Chrome? Google, whose browser plays Netflix or Mozilla that doesn't open Netflix? If you answered Mozilla, you live in real world :( No, this one is squarely on shoulders of those that supported that damned crud of W3C standa…

Who gives a fuck about Netflix? What percentage of the Internet population are ever likely to or are even interested in subscribing to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime etc?

What grates me most is that if Mozilla was really targeting the developing world, as per their aims with cheap FirefoxOS phones, then there would be no need to implement this, which simply panders to the needs of first/western world media companies demanding DRM on their content.

I'm exceedingly disappointed with Mozilla for making this decision.

Post reply on HN