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

351–360 of 374 posts

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

#351

Post by ewzimm »

magicalist wrote: post #317
ewzimm wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the truth. There has been no effective movement against DRM. The EFF is more guilty than Mozilla in this case because fighting DRM is a core function of the EFF's, while adapting to established web standards is Mozilla's primary function.

You are completely and utterly wrong here. I don't even know how you arrived at this conclusion. The EFF was fighting this with education of the public, procedural maneuverings within the W3C itself, and with invited commentary to the relevant standards groups. Mozilla was also doing these things, and, contrary to what you might assume living in our tech bubble, has a pulpit with far greater reach than the EFF. But t…

Mozilla is still against DRM, but it is secondary to their mission to provide access to web standards. The EFF's lack of effectiveness is not a defense. They do good work, but more is needed. In this case, it's not fair to point the finger for a joint loss.

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

#352

Post by matart »

spacelizard wrote: post #337
matart wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content providers start blocking firefox from accessing their content. It will eventually be easier to use chrome, IE, or whatever instead of using a work around to keep on firefox. It will lose a large portion of its user base and then its funding as it won't bring in as much from default search provider contracts etc

That's even more of a reason to boycott them and keep using Firefox.

But I want to watch my netflix without having to jump through more hoops than I do already (running it on Linux).

And I know my family who is not tech savvy will just have to move to a browser that allows Youtube, Netflix, and whatever else requires this DRM.

I don't like it but I don't think firefox would make it otherwise.

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

#353

Post by pdonis »

stormbrew wrote: post #154
rayiner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 marke…

The social network example is extremely poor. In the case of a social network, Facebook has no means to prevent its users from using other social networks. The value proposition of a social network is in its users, and any network that can attract users can attract other users on that basis. There is no exclusive relationship between the content (users) and content providers (facebook et. al.). In the case of televis…

> There is no exclusive relationship between the content (users) and content providers (facebook et. al.).

Really? You can export all your Facebook data and switch to another social network that will import it all? Please tell us all how you do this.

You're ignoring the huge effect of lock-in for a site like Facebook: they have all your data, and there's no way for you to get it back in a non-proprietary format. Functionally this is basically the same as DRM: you don't control how you can access your social network data, Facebook does.

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

#354

Post by [deleted] »

prewett wrote: post #298

I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but what do you suggest as an alternative way that content creators can protect their work? Movies cost tens of millions of dollars to make; I expect that you would not spend $10 million of your money to make something that everyone could just freely download. Would you invest a year writing a great novel if everyone could read it for free without paying you? Some people will…

[deleted]

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

#355

Post by Yoric »

pessimizer wrote: post #191
azakai wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla has been different in philosophy. It's the only browser created by a nonprofit, and it fights for open web causes all the time. I think people that care about that are aware of it. But the facts remain that the vast majority of users don't care about the philosophical differences. When Chrome and Internet Explorer started shipping EME, almost no one switched browser. When Snowden's revelations came out, almos…

Philosophy isn't just speech, it's deed. This, right now, is a deed. They should put as much energy into propagating their ideas as into redesigning the interface to look like a Chrome knockoff. Cultivate some dial-a-pundits that TV people can count on for an opinion about the Internet. Have a thinktank. Aggressively fundraise. Expanding the userbase is the answer, not chasing corporate behemoths.

Well, that movement is about not shrinking the userbase, so surely we agree?

More generally, Mozilla's ability to influence the web away from DRM, as well as privacy invasions, stems entirely from the ability of Mozilla to deliver a product that users want. Making sure that users can't watch $YourFavoriteShow would be a pretty dumb move when all other major browsers have taken the necessary steps to make sure that their users have no such limitation.

Cultivating "dial-a-pundits", as you call them, would be nice, and we certainly take every opportunity we can to express our views on just about everything web-related. And this specific battler (DRM in web browsers) has been fought and lost. We need to regroup, cut the losses and reorder to fight the next battle.

If you wish to help fight DRMs, please make as many people as you can aware of the dangers of DRMs. Also, justa s importantly, we need to convince Hollywood that DRMs are costly and unsatisfying. For this, we need to develop and showcase alternatives, that users will use. This is the only way.

Because we can't fight Google + Apple + Microsoft + Netflix + Hulu + Hollywood on the lobbying front. We just don't have the means.

(Yeah, I'm a Firefox Dev.)

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

#356

Post by Yoric »

vehementi wrote: post #275
higherpurpose wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Mozilla says they will lose users if they don't do this, doesn't make it true. They've shown no evidence of trends that this is happening. They are simply adopting DRM out of fear . Also chasing popularity is like chasing money. It shouldn't be the goal . Those things follow after doing the right thing, and I believe for an organization with the kind of community and userbase Firefox has around it, not i…

Indeed... this is just throwing in the towel completely without putting up a fight. Here are various other ways: - do the work to implement the DRM thing but keep it disabled ready to hot patch in once evidence shows that they'll be fucked without it - display "this is bullshit DRM content you shouldn't support, read more HERE, and click HERE if you really don't care and will use another browser to view this anyway"…

Er... We have been fighting this proposal for several years, thank you very much.

Also: > - do the work to implement the DRM thing but keep it disabled ready to hot patch in once evidence shows that they'll be fucked without it

So when do we decide that? After we have lost our user base? Or when it becomes evident that just almost everybody is already watching movies on the web using proprietary blackboxes that may or may not use DRM, may or may not identify you and may or may not leak your info? Because that has been the case for quite a few years already.

> - display "this is bullshit DRM content you shouldn't support, read more HERE, and click HERE if you really don't care and will use another browser to view this anyway" in place of the DRM content initially

So, lecture users and invite them to change browser? That doesn't sound like a good strategy.

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

#357

Post by spacelizard »

matart wrote: post #352
spacelizard wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's even more of a reason to boycott them and keep using Firefox.

But I want to watch my netflix without having to jump through more hoops than I do already (running it on Linux). And I know my family who is not tech savvy will just have to move to a browser that allows Youtube, Netflix, and whatever else requires this DRM. I don't like it but I don't think firefox would make it otherwise.

There is no simple answer. The only thing I can suggest is to just stop using Netflix until someone cracks it, or they decide to stop using DRM. This isn't your fault, it's Netflix and Hollywood's fault, their use of DRM is blackmail on their entire customer base. As in the case of any blackmail, the best option is to stand your ground and not give in.

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

#358

Post by takluyver »

wyager wrote: post #304
takluyver wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a neat summary of an idea that always turns up on every DRM thread. If the best way to copy a movie is to buy some extra hardware to plug into your VGA port, and then play the movie back at regular speed while you record it, then DRM is working. Joe Bloggs isn't going to do that to give his mates copies of a movie he enjoyed. Of course, someone out there will go through that and put it on the internet. But Jo…

Most piracy isn't about Joe Bloggs giving the video to his friends. It's established institutions uploading videos to popular torrent sites, where they get millions of downloads. There is simply no way to prevent that.

Piracy isn't about Joe giving the video to his friends precisely because of DRM. If it was trivial to click 'save as' and copy the movie to a memory stick, I think people would be swapping movies routinely.

I already outlined precisely how they limit the influence of illegal download sites: ensure that the effort to find them and the perceived risk of prosecution and malware exceeds the cost of getting the movie legally. Once people start working and appreciate the value of their time, it's not actually very hard to tip that equation in their favour.

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

#359

Post by brownbat »

rayiner wrote: post #141
brownbat wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that a market is free... We're talking about a government-created monopoly though. If there is competition over distribution, rather than content, better delivery mechanisms eventually win. We had this when FM displaced AM radio. There was a compulsory licensing regime, which means that anyone can distribute any content they want for a reasonable fixed fee. FM was a better distribution technology, so it wo…

All property rights are government created monopolies. Imagine applying compulsory licensing to other things. They government forces you to sell your widgets at a "reasonable fixed fee." Imagine the government forcing Google or Facebook to share their databases to potential competitors for a "reasonable fixed fee." Compulsory licensing was a tactic used to shift profits from content creators to middlemen.

> All property rights are government created monopolies.

It's true that governments attempt to ensure property rights in other things. But tangible goods have a natural scarcity, while scarcity is imposed on digitial copies. My use of a plow excludes your simultaneously use of the plow. My use of an mp3 does not.

Government steps in and limits the technology artificially, creating an artificial scarcity, not unlike a "club good": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good

The fact that widgets are "rivalrous" is exactly why they're poor candidates for such schemes. But the way we sell "widgets" isn't the ideal way to provide all things. The way we sell widgets wouldn't be a good way to sell street lighting or national defense, however, because those goods are "non-excludable," meaning you get free rider problems.

So we have different systems for different goods based on the properties of those goods. Ocean going vessels don't shop for lighthouses at a corner store, and we don't have a municipal fund set aside to supply every child with popsicles.

My humble suggestion is that we treat digital content more like other non-rivalrous goods, and less like popsicles.

> Compulsory licensing was a tactic...

Compulsory licensing arose in many different domains for different reasons. Radio, live performances, cover bands all have somewhat unique histories that defy one simple damning motive. Regardless of past motives, I'm happy to agree that compulsory licensing wouldn't be a good scheme if its only benefit was to move profits from one group to another.

It improves efficiency more broadly though. There are several reasons, but for one, consider the transaction costs to any negotiation with any content holder. If society can just have that negotiation once, publicly, it will save everyone a lot of hassle.

It also cleanly addresses the holdout problem, I find that a major perk.

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

#360

Post by shkkmo »

magicalist wrote: post #314
shkkmo wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the very least doing this now instead of years from now when it might start mattering (like what happened with h.264) does not exactly demonstrate sticking to their guns. Ah, but the flipside: Doing this now, as opposed to years from now when the technology is established, gives Mozilla more influence over the form that this DRM takes, the protections that are available to consumers and the marketplace in genera…

This doesn't need to be hypothetical. We can look at that trade directly. We traded hardware fingerprints that aren't trackable across services for DRM in HTML. That's what we got. So glad they got in on the ground floor instead of continuing to work to never have it enter the spec at all.

DRM is in HTML. That happened already. Mozilla refusing to implement it is not especially likely to make W3C change their minds. It might slow down the rate of adoption among content providers, but it's not gonna change the spec.

I hope we get more from Mozilla than hardware fingerprints that aren't trackable across services. I hope we get a lot more.

Post reply on HN