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

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

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 374 posts

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

#61

Post by Pacabel »

GuiA wrote: post #45
howeyc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ding ding ding! You've hit the nail on the head. Mozilla has no real power over the web. Google, Microsoft, and Apple have the power (look at the names associated with EME DRM - what a surprise). Mozilla has an illusion of power, which is tolerated by the other actors because it makes everyone happy. But no one should mistake it for real leverage.

That's very true. And as more and more people move away from Firefox due to Mozilla's bad design decisions as of late, their limited influence diminishes even further. Their 15% to 20% share of the browser market just can't compare to IE's 20% or more, never mind Chrome's 40% or more.

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

#62

Post by simon_vetter »

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.

Because Adobe will be writing a closed-source module distributed in a binary form, you'll end up with the exact same situation as with plugins IMHO.

Only a subset of the available OS and processor architectures will be supported.

Flash was designed years ago and even though everyone wants it to die, we're still feeling its pain. Designing a similar solution in 2014 is just asking for trouble for the next 10-20 years IMO.

Oh, and you're giving up the opportunity/right to audit the code that runs on your devices.

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

#63

Post by snird »

michaelt wrote: post #53
snird wrote: post #21

Technology should never force it's users (the sites creators) to use one technology or another. Not implementing DRM is idiotic for couple of reasons: 1. The decision of whether or not to use DRM should be of the site creators. That's as "free" as it gets. forcing them otherwise by not letting them the option is bad. 2. Even without implementing it, DRM is available through flash or silverlight or any other third par…

So by that logic, if a site creator wants their site in powerpoint 97 .ppt format instead of using HTML, are browsers obligated to support it?

you are right, I haven't stated my point correctly.

The missing point is that of the market demand. DRM is out there, it's too late. It will be used anyway, with flash\silverlight or what have you.

So, this demand should be answered, using flash is no overhead for the site, but rather a bad thing for the end user. not implementing DRM isn't hurting the sites wants it, at that point, it only hurts the end users. so implementing it is the right decision.

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

#64

Post by acak »

I liked Ubuntu's approach where they asked you on startup if you want to install/enable proprietary packages like Flash or some graphics drivers.

Is it tough for Mozilla to prompt the user to do something similar with DRM stuff on first run? i.e. Telling them these are the features not supported by Mozilla in principle but are a) implemented to be in compliance with standards and b) required if you choose to use services like Netflix.

That way I would still have the option to run a DRM free browser (and voluntarily not use websites that require DRM).

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

#65

Post by chc »

wolfgke wrote: post #44
jgraham wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the case. You can choose to not install the CDM component.

Apple has for political reasons disabled the possibility to install a Flash plugin on Safari/iOS. Why doesn't Firefox do the same with a CDM component for political reasons?

Apple disabled Flash for "security reasons." You can certainly read in politics, but the reason they gave was that it was the #1 attack vector on Macs and they had no way of securing it. And more importantly, nearly everybody else was on Apple's side in this fight. Other browser makers had problems with Flash too. Mac users largely hated Flash because it had terrible performance on that platform. Even Adobe was cooling off toward Flash as it became more and more clear that it wouldn't work on mobile platforms.

Mozilla's position here is not at all similar to Apple's position then, so their options are not the same.

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

#66

Post by dublinben »

wyager wrote: post #20
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.

It would be worse because HTML is supposed to be a hypertext standard, not a DRM standard. We shouldn't be putting closed things in "open" standards.

There is nothing closed being put into the standard.

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

#67

Post by [deleted] »

saganus wrote: post #52
nullc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

The problem is that no one can guarantee that the "opt-out" choice will continue to be there in the foreseeable future. What will happen when, suddenly Mozilla starts "feeling the pressure" to remove that option? What then? The problem is the building's foundations, not the decoration.

[deleted]

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

#68

Post by kbuck »

saganus wrote: post #52
nullc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

The problem is that no one can guarantee that the "opt-out" choice will continue to be there in the foreseeable future. What will happen when, suddenly Mozilla starts "feeling the pressure" to remove that option? What then? The problem is the building's foundations, not the decoration.

This seems unlikely, and in fact, Firefox has been moving in the opposite direction with other binary components (Flash, Java, Silverlight). Newer builds of Firefox require you to explicitly confirm that you'd like to allow to execute plugin code. I doubt this will change any time soon.

I'd rather have a (albeit stupid) DRM executable that only performs encryption/decryption than Flash, Java, or Silverlight, which are the current solutions for this. All three of these offer APIs for doing things other than decrypting DRM content, and these APIs have been proven time and time again to be vulnerable to attack, no matter how much time is spent trying to sandbox them properly.

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

#69

Post by general_failure »

michaelt wrote: post #53
snird wrote: post #21

Technology should never force it's users (the sites creators) to use one technology or another. Not implementing DRM is idiotic for couple of reasons: 1. The decision of whether or not to use DRM should be of the site creators. That's as "free" as it gets. forcing them otherwise by not letting them the option is bad. 2. Even without implementing it, DRM is available through flash or silverlight or any other third par…

So by that logic, if a site creator wants their site in powerpoint 97 .ppt format instead of using HTML, are browsers obligated to support it?

If enough people want it, then yes.

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

#70

Post by jljljl »

wolfgke wrote: post #44
jgraham wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the case. You can choose to not install the CDM component.

Apple has for political reasons disabled the possibility to install a Flash plugin on Safari/iOS. Why doesn't Firefox do the same with a CDM component for political reasons?

Apple also did this for performance and usability reasons. And when Apple did it, there were no smartphone alternatives that provided a sufficiently good Flash experience.

And before you say Android had Flash, I had an Android device that could run Flash in 2011. It was a pretty useless feature.

Post reply on HN