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

181–190 of 195 posts

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#181

Post by josteink »

davexunit wrote: post #47
ygjb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Improving and defending the open web is not just about fighting the good fight on DRM. The Mozilla mission also calls for us to fight for users right to make choices[0] as well. Mozilla could choose not to implement EME, and draw that line in the sand, but that means denying users the option of continuing to use Firefox to access content they choose to access . My preference (both as a long time Firefox user, and a M…

Sure, the user may want to access DRM-encumbered content, but we shouldn't promote such a thing. You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content! Just because users want Netflix in Firefox doesn't mean that it's the right thing to provide.

You're not denying the users anything by refusing to implement EME, the media companies are denying the users freedom by insisting on using malware to deliver content!

These are the same companies which are refusing to deliver content to Linux and open platforms today, which will continue to do so in the future.

But now they can claim it's standards-compliant so it's the open-platforms which has a problem, and not them!

This thing clearly stinks.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#182

Post by mixedbit »

mdeslaur wrote: post #146
mixedbit wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which in reality translates to: DRM is about screwing honest users, pirates always find a way around it.

Honest users couldn't care less, as long as it works.

The problem is that in most case it doesn't. Like in the example from this post, where users can no longer run fully open browser. Or when you buy a game and are unable to play it because your internet link is down. I have never seen a DRM system that wouldn't impede honest usage in some way.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#184

Post by JonoW »

wfjackson wrote: post #17

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Google has been spending massively on pushing Chrome even bundled as default on new machines with OEM agreements t…

A lot of people include Apple when talking about how the big companies are pushing EME, but Safari is now the only browser that hasn't announced support for it. I assume they'll eventually do it, but it's worth noting that Firefox wasn't the last browser to announce support.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#185

Post by rlx0x »

makomk wrote: post #87
rlx0x wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess thats pseudo DRM. On the other end you have things like RTMPe, a proprietary highly complex binary protocol that is only implemented in the adobe flash plugin binary blob. Or something like HDCP (the copy protection part of HDMI) that builds a hardware encryption platform, with an central authority and certified hardware vendors. Those are just 2 examples of "strong" DRM, but since even those two have been so…

The EME standard is explicitly designed to support hardware encryption systems that provide end-to-end encryption - think a proprietary decryption black box in your devices that takes an encrypted, compressed video screen and overlays it directly onto the screen output without it ever touching RAM anywhere where software can access it. Good luck breaking that, short of inconvenient hacks involving HDCP decryption and…

I think its always amusing when people say that is unbreakable. When in fact there never was and never will be such a thing.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#186

Post by Stately »

josteink wrote: post #98

This is terrible news from end to end. To solve it, we need to tackle the root problem and not blame the browsers: those who want to infect our open web with DRM. Cancel your Netflix subscription. Let them know why. Same with Hulu. Same with amazon video. same with anyone who tells you to that your open web is less important than their unwillingness to embrace the new, digital frontier. Don't give money to the asshat…

has that ever worked? (honest question)

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#187

Post by EdwardDiego »

wfjackson wrote: post #17

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Google has been spending massively on pushing Chrome even bundled as default on new machines with OEM agreements t…

> . Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc.

Firefox also went through a very long period of being a memory heavy browser with multiple tabs and the UI sharing a single thread of execution for JS execution - meaning that one badly behaving website could render the entire browser unresponsive.

...at least that's why I stopped using it.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#188

Post by EdwardDiego »

atopal wrote: post #104
wfjackson wrote: post #17

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Google has been spending massively on pushing Chrome even bundled as default on new machines with OEM agreements t…

> in the meantime Firefox and Opera relied on the promise > and then were forced to start implementing support once > they realized Google was not going to keep the promise > and it was hurting them and then included support(I don't > think Opera ever did?). Not only that, Mozilla partnered with CISCO to make h264 usage free for all. Now, people can modify and redistribute Firefox and still retain the ability to play…

> If you are using Chrome, don't fool yourself, you are not using an open source browser, but you are helping Google further the agenda of its stakeholders

As an example, Chrome won't ship an adblocker by default... but they will add code to prevent popunders from working.

Guess which ad format Google doesn't do...

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#189

Post by zanny »

shmerl wrote: post #94
zanny wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can own the file, but not he intellectual property it represents. So I'm allowed to distribute files I own freely, as long as I take the file extension off of it? Or the metadata? I agree, the long string of the presence or absence of electric charge that make up A New Hope is not the concept of a "A New Hope". Too bad nobody else sees it that way, because when you put that number through a math function named…

> So I'm allowed to distribute files I own freely, as long as I take the file extension off of it? Who said you are allowed to distribute them freely? You are not. Same way you aren't allowed making photo copies of books and distributing them freely (except fair use cases). Making personal copies is fine (it's fair use). It's not relevant to the discussion above really.

Right here, in the parent:

> you can own the file, but not the intellectual property it represents. So legally nothing is wrong with buying digital goods (files), while the intellectual property they hold is only licensed to you (and not sold)

He makes references between books the paper and books the print. My point is that while that distinction holds in digital space, nobody actually believes it.

Re: Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME

#190

Post by cben »

shmerl wrote: post #64

Netflix is considered the main driver behind this DRM madness. In the context of Netflix, an often voiced reason for DRM is the fact that it rents movies, rather than sells them. Besides DRM being completely ineffective to prevent piracy, the concept of rentals itself doesn't make any sense for digital goods. The core logic behind a rental (for physical goods) is reusability. Physical goods have a fixed cost of produ…

Even more absurd is the story of ebook lending. IIUC libraries fought for it in the consumers' interest with the result that you can sometimes now "take out" an ebook from a library or another reader, blocking their access to it until you "return" it. Worse, publishers implemented "wearing out" of the copy after some number of uses! [http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/e-book-library-lending-b...]

I tried to go paper-less last year but gave in when I noticed most books I wanted I can get on Amazon for like: - $15 for a ebook (of limited use due to DRM) - $10 printed in advance on dead trees and shipped to me - $4 for a used paper copy (in near-perfect condition)

How is it possible that a new physical book is cheaper than the ebook!?! The only explanation is that DRM prevented the existance of a second-hand market letting prices sky-rocket.

The key point here is first-sale doctrine. Physical goods could always be resold, and the used books market kept book prices (both sale and rent) in check. Ironically, until the internet peer-to-peer resale was impractical, so second-hand stores came in as "trackers" and libraries as both "trackers" and "seeds" :-)

Anyway, I see this as a counter-point to the replies claiming some customers want DRM because it allows renting which at lower prices than buying. Without DRM, giving up a film you watched to save money wouldn't have to be a justifiable business model for publishers — it'd be an inevitable result of your ability to sell it. ("Selling your copy" also doesn't make any sense in a digital world. But it's no more absurd than the concept of "buying a copy" in the first place, and as long as copyright enables first sale we are better off with second sale freedom.)

I suppose video renting only exists because film studios had to compete with themselves selling physical media. (Scary realization: If Hollywood embraced exclusively digital delivery, they could be more evil!)

Post reply on HN