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

71–80 of 374 posts

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

#71

Post by mcpherrinm »

acak wrote: post #64

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 serv…

Mozilla has explicitly said the DRM plugin won't run without user consent.

How this prompt exactly looks isn't clear to me, but it seems like you're getting the option you want today.

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

#72

Post by evv »

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.

I doubt netflix looses much business because they require silverlight to watch.

On the contrary, making DRM tech more accessible to developers will only help young startups build platforms that are "content provider friendly". This will promote competition in the online entertainment space and ultimately drive prices down.

I'm no fan of DRM but I see the value it serves. Just like advertising. I don't see why everybody is making such a fuss about this when we already have a wide proliferation of plugin-based DRM. Why are people complaining that it is moving towards an even more open layer?

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

#73

Post by marincounty »

maaku wrote: post #37
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?

They still have my trust, but I feel like I just heard by girlfriend cheated. And yes--I have no life. I never thought I would care about stuff like this, but I do.

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

#75

Post by wolfgke »

renata wrote: post #58
wolfgke wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The cost to the user of switching off Apple hardware is much greater than the cost of switching from Firefox to Chrome.

A few years ago there was a cost involved for switching to the iPhone. The only reason why you see this the other way round is that "no Flash" is now established (at least for mobile). On the other hand: no DRM in browser cannot be considered as established - so we are at the same point where the iPhone was some years ago.

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

#77

Post by barrkel »

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…

It is the wrong choice.

It's the same BS I remember reading on slides from graphics card vendors excusing some other way of selling the user down the river.

Content can adapt to reach their customers. Bend here and the web itself is under threat.

Mozilla needs a social contract like Debian, since it seems clear they can't rely on leadership for backbone.

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

#78

Post by klodolph »

wyager wrote: post #33
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.

So what you do is you use the DRM API to negotiate a way to transfer a decryption key to a secure hardware module in the consumer's device. Having the source code to the Firefox component doesn't give you access to the firmware or keys stored in the module. (Yes, you can hack hardware. But it's way more expensive.)

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

#80

Post by pdpi »

revelation wrote: post #60
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, the evergreen of explanations by those that betray their principles and users (or, you know, voters). They exercised a freedom of choice they had, and this is the decision they made. This is what we judge them on. No backsies, no "but I didn't want to", just pure "go fuck yourself Mozilla".

Ok, great. Go fuck yourself Mozilla. Now what?

What real alternative did they have? Unlike RMS, Mozilla have always played with a more pragmatic strategy. If you want to win this war, you need to educate users. Being that only a handful of people out there actively care about privacy issues and platform openness, you need to produce a compelling product first and foremost, and then push your agenda on top of that. If Mozilla were to not implement EME, they'd cripple their own capacity to reach those users, and the war would be as good as lost.

Post reply on HN