Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose • Hacker News Board

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#31

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:12 PM UTC

farresito wrote: post #18

chimeracoder wrote: post #4

From a comment by a Mozilla employee on another thread, it seems that the UI for this has not yet been determined[0]. It's possible that this may be presented to the user in a way similar to a plugin installation, except that the plugin happens to be provided by Mozilla (not a third-party). This isn't great, but to the end user, it looks the same as Flash and Silverlight. Especially if Mozilla were to add click-to-pl…

What really worries me is the fact that now it's going to be way easier to implement something with DRM. A lot of users nowadays are not willing to install some third party plugin. The fact that it comes with the browser means that it's extremely easy to implement something with that DRM. I might be wrong, since I haven't read much about it.

[deleted]

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#32

Post by howeyc » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:13 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #9

Mozilla had to be dragged into this acceptance kicking and screaming (metaphorically). They were faced with a hard choice, Not implement EME (HTML5 DRM) and risk users moving to other browsers (user loss) or implement EME and risk looking like they are contradicting their core mission (trust loss). They figured a little loss of trust is worth keeping most of the users on the Mozilla platform - which in my view is the…

Right, they are using "their power to influence the development of the open web" by supporting DRM.

What's the point in having this power if you immediately cave?

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#33

Post by wyager » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:13 PM UTC

hidden-markov wrote: post #12

Maybe it can be disassembled? Like it what was done with some proprietary blobs of Linux kernel.

It absolutely can be disassembled. It's information-theoretically impossible to have a video format that people can watch, but can't transcode.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#34

Post by wodenokoto » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:13 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #25

suprgeek wrote: post #9

Mozilla had to be dragged into this acceptance kicking and screaming (metaphorically). They were faced with a hard choice, Not implement EME (HTML5 DRM) and risk users moving to other browsers (user loss) or implement EME and risk looking like they are contradicting their core mission (trust loss). They figured a little loss of trust is worth keeping most of the users on the Mozilla platform - which in my view is the…

For people who want DRM there are already enough browser choices. On the other hand for people who refuse DRM there's only one choice - and soon zero.

no. drm will still be an add-on, just like it is today. The DRM add-on will just change from flash/silverlight.

DRM is a very real thing in todays web.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#35

Post by nullc » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:14 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #25

suprgeek wrote: post #9

Mozilla had to be dragged into this acceptance kicking and screaming (metaphorically). They were faced with a hard choice, Not implement EME (HTML5 DRM) and risk users moving to other browsers (user loss) or implement EME and risk looking like they are contradicting their core mission (trust loss). They figured a little loss of trust is worth keeping most of the users on the Mozilla platform - which in my view is the…

For people who want DRM there are already enough browser choices. On the other hand for people who refuse DRM there's only one choice - and soon zero.

I'm not sure that thats quite fair— Firefox won't run the CDM without user consent. You can still say no.

Having a choice doesn't magically resolve the issues, it doesn't prevent content providers from making things formerly available unavailable, it doesn't help us (as users) make better more considered decisions rather than clicking yes a lot to get things done, etc. But it does retain the choice to not run this stuff, choice which is not retained in the current closed source alternatives.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#36

Post by saganus » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:14 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #27

chimeracoder wrote: post #4

From a comment by a Mozilla employee on another thread, it seems that the UI for this has not yet been determined[0]. It's possible that this may be presented to the user in a way similar to a plugin installation, except that the plugin happens to be provided by Mozilla (not a third-party). This isn't great, but to the end user, it looks the same as Flash and Silverlight. Especially if Mozilla were to add click-to-pl…

It's been made clear that, whatever happens, "users will have control over whether the CDM is used in their copy of Firefox."

"...until we decide otherwise" (for different values of "we")

Edit: Added last part.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#37

Post by maaku » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:14 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #9

Mozilla had to be dragged into this acceptance kicking and screaming (metaphorically). They were faced with a hard choice, Not implement EME (HTML5 DRM) and risk users moving to other browsers (user loss) or implement EME and risk looking like they are contradicting their core mission (trust loss). They figured a little loss of trust is worth keeping most of the users on the Mozilla platform - which in my view is the…

Mozilla's whole argument for using their products rests on trust. They have consistently lost out in terms of performance, usability, and other things users care about. I no longer trust Mozilla, so why should I use their software? How does this not result in loss of trust and users?

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#38

Post by chimeracoder » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:15 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #27

chimeracoder wrote: post #4

From a comment by a Mozilla employee on another thread, it seems that the UI for this has not yet been determined[0]. It's possible that this may be presented to the user in a way similar to a plugin installation, except that the plugin happens to be provided by Mozilla (not a third-party). This isn't great, but to the end user, it looks the same as Flash and Silverlight. Especially if Mozilla were to add click-to-pl…

It's been made clear that, whatever happens, "users will have control over whether the CDM is used in their copy of Firefox."

I understand that - I'm saying that Mozilla has an opportunity to go even further now than they were with Flash and Silverlight (users always had control over whether those were included as well).

As explained in the comment I linked:

> I could imagine [Mozilla] using the opportunity to display a message to educate users as to what DRM is and whose phone number to call if they don't like it. ;-)

Obviously not including DRM at all is ideal, but at least would be a way to remain true to one's values (supporting freedom and the open web) and educating users in the process, while still providing support for these features.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#39

Post by rayiner » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:15 PM UTC

stormbrew wrote: post #8

EduardoBautista wrote: post #2

How about just ignore the websites that implement DRM and let the free market decide if those websites will survive? People treat DRM as if it was going to turn us into North Korea when it comes to internet access.

If you could make the choice of what content to watch and what to watch it with independently, this could be said to be a free market decision. As is, my decision to support or not support DRM dictates the content I can watch. That for most people the content is more important gives the false signal that people are choosing DRM (which, in reality, pretty much nobody would). That's not a functional free market. There…

I feel like this is a rationalization. The fact that a market is free doesn't mean that producers can't sell on the terms they want. There is DRM-free content, just not the content you want. Content creators choose to use DRM because very few users object to it, and I bet with modern DRM most don't even know it exists. That's a perfectly functional free market.

Its like saying that there isn't a functional free market for social networks because you want a subscription-supported site while Facebook, etc, are ad supported. The fact that a seller won't sell on the terms I want doesn't mean its not a free market.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#40

Post by jgraham » Wed, May 14, 2014, 10:15 PM UTC

ggchappell wrote: post #24

themoonbus wrote: post #3

Can some one explain to me why having, say, an HTML 5 based video player with DRM would be worse than one implemented in a closed platform like Silverlight or Flash? I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to make an argument here.

Okay, let's assume that, in the former case, the functionality required is built into the browser and enabled by default. The problem with the former case, then, is that I get a browser that ostensibly supports my freedom, and this code that runs things secretly, without letting me intervene or analyze, comes in with it, under the radar. In the latter case, I have to take a deliberate action, explicitly agree to a li…

To quote [1]:

" * Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content.

* We have surrounded the closed-source portion with an open-source wrapper. This allows us to monitor and better understand the scope of activities of the closed-source code."

So your hypothetical built-into-the-browser and on-by-default implementation does not describe the same thing that has been announced for Firefox. Indeed the actual plan is quite close to what you suggest in your final paragraph.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challen...