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

Save Firefox

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#111

Post by marcosdumay »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #49
shmerl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).

I mostly agree with you, and I think we are largely on the same side, but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different. That said, I would be very happy if there were no DRM in the world, and I would just go to the movie theater to see new movies. I was the featured Creative Commoner many years ago, and I appreciate a world where Creative Commons licenses are used and mostly libre software is use…

The problem is that DRM is incompatible with an open computer, and leads us to the situation we are on mobile, where users can't control their computers at all.

Content producers have the right to rent their content. They just don't have the right to cripple the entire economy and everybody's infosec doing so.

Re: Save Firefox

#112

Post by Karunamon »

drewcrawford wrote: post #79
Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

The unsupported assertion that a DRM-free universe "is not realistic" is not an argument, even when it is repeated for emphasis in italics. In the music industry, DRM seemed inevitable until one morning Steve Jobs woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Then the whole thing crumbled overnight. iTunes was not "pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access". Users did prefer to buy DRM-free mu…

No it wouldn't have - we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user.

Furthermore, you imply a level of informal cooperation between the browser vendors that doesn't exist. It turns into a game of prisoners dilemma, where the first person to defect gets to claim a massive feature that none of the others do, and the others are left in worse shape.

I'm no fan of DRM, but again, it's the world we live in.

Re: Save Firefox

#113

Post by icebraining »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #94
Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

It dosent get rid of the "1000s of adhoc plugins" problem whatsoever, CDMs (the thing EME is merely a bridge to) are platform specific, closed source, arbitrary blobs of code that can do anything on the host system, you do not target "EME" as a streaming host you target these CDMs.

As I pointed out above, on Firefox they can't "do anything on the host system" as they'll be sandboxed and allowed only the necessary mechanisms to do their job.

Re: Save Firefox

#114

Post by Karunamon »

tremon wrote: post #83
Karunamon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recording it. It's a stream, you're paying $company for the rights to access content over the wire. Recording that isn't a right, legal or moral.

See, and that's the problem with implementations like this. Recording this is perfectly legal in NL.

And what of the fact that you likely agreed not to do in in exchange for access to the service?

Re: Save Firefox

#115

Post by shams93 »

Servo might save it the c++ codebase for firefox is a nightmare but servo could wind up taking back the crown from chrome.

Re: Save Firefox

#116

Post by charlesdm »

serge2k wrote: post #105
hsod wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The status quo is this: If I build a browser right now from scratch, it can't play Netflix videos.

Can't you just implement NPAPI to get silverlight support and then fake a user agent to get Netflix to give you the right content?

I have tried implementing NPAPI loading in a standalone C++ app to load Silverlight, but failed horribly. NPAPI is badly documented. Anyone here with any tips? :-)

Re: Save Firefox

#117

Post by mynameislegion »

wmf wrote: post #106
mynameislegion wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDM API is called "EME" and it is a standard. That's why Widevine can be made to work with Firefox ( https://github.com/i-rinat/gmp-widevine ). EDIT: Firefox now supports Widevine > Beginning in version 47, Firefox desktop also supports the Google Widevine CDM. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm The issue with browser-specific CDMs at this time seems to be only because of varying completeness of EME…

That shim exists because Chrome and Firefox have different CDM APIs. There isn't a common API.

The common API is called "EME". Chrome and Firefox's API's are different because they're unfinished.

Re: Save Firefox

#118

Post by pdkl95 »

dasil003 wrote: post #88
throwaway2048 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? It is totally inoperable without a proprietary plugin backing it up.

Because everything else happening on the page is still regular web stuff, not encapsulated in a proprietary plugin like Flash. Essentially much smaller surface area of proprietary stuff, and because each browser only implements one CDM and they are responsible for the integration it doesn't break as much the way that Flash increasingly did over time.

If I go to a page with a video on it that uses flash, the rest of the page works just fine if I don't have the flash plugin installed. This is identical behavior to not having the CDM. If the rest of the page also uses flash, that's entirely separate. It is even possible that the rest of the page could be flash, while playing a video with either the native tag or through a CDM.

Integration between the video and the rest of the page is going to break without {video tag support with the necessary codec,flash,EME support with the necessary CDM}. Again, there is no difference.

You're trying to pretend that there is somehow a more usable page with EME+CDM over flash, when most of the time the video was the goal.

> having spent the last decade founding and building a premium content streaming service

You're fighting against the General Purpose Computer. Sorry, you don't get to run code on my computer without my approval. You don't get to turn my General Purpose Computer into an appliance. If you care at all about preserving any control over your own General Purpose Computers, stop. You've already spent a decade building the seeds of technology that lock down the web. Now John Deere has used the same ideas to take away property rights. You are adding difficulties to legitimate users while the pirates ignore your CDM and go straight to torrents/etc. Was the delusion that you're protecting anything worth these costs?

Re: Save Firefox

#119

Post by serge2k »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #94
Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

It dosent get rid of the "1000s of adhoc plugins" problem whatsoever, CDMs (the thing EME is merely a bridge to) are platform specific, closed source, arbitrary blobs of code that can do anything on the host system, you do not target "EME" as a streaming host you target these CDMs.

In practical sense it does because the big content providers are incentivized to work with the common DRM solutions, in order to keep eyes on their product without causing massive headaches for everyone involved. Smaller producers don't have the influence to start putting out custom DRM solutions.

You will probably still have the morons who insist they need some special thing, but that's just standard.

Re: Save Firefox

#120

Post by tremon »

Karunamon wrote: post #114
tremon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, and that's the problem with implementations like this. Recording this is perfectly legal in NL.

And what of the fact that you likely agreed not to do in in exchange for access to the service?

EULAs are not valid in NL either, and the law trumps contracts. We pay taxes for the right to make home copies.
Post reply on HN