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

Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 220 posts

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#121

Post by shmerl »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #113
shmerl wrote: post #86

Netflix are hypocrites (and all this is primarily their fault). They claimed that this DRM garbage in the standard wasn't their desire, and they did it to oblige obsessed publishers. Yet, where is their own content DRM-free?

It's possible to dislike DRM but also understand that it is necessary for your business to function. I imagine the majority of their content comes from sources which demand DRM. If I were Netflix, I would use my own content (such as House of Cards) to demonstrate that it's possible to go DRM-free.

> If I were Netflix, I would use my own content (such as House of Cards) to demonstrate that it's possible to go DRM-free.

That's primarily my point, but I don't agree that DRM in necessary for business. Music is sold DRM-free, games are too (GOG). So there is no reason why video can't be. Someone just have to break the sick status quo.

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#122

Post by jumpwah »

e12e wrote: post #80

Apparently DRM doesn't work on Linux, yet - but either way: how can DRM even work with Free software? If I can modify the source and build my own version, surely I can [make a version of the software that] strip out the DRM? Would that make Mozilla liable as facilitating breach of the DMCA? Or is the DRM bit really in a binary blob supplied with the gpu/audio driver? [And support in the browser is just to facilitate…

This is obviously the main issue. The DRM component itself is nonfree, downloaded from Adobe's servers (iirc).

With this DRM section in the official html specification, it is impossible to implement a fully html spec compliant, free software browser, which personally I think is outrageous.

At the end of the day, it's still "just" a spec, but I don't think someone (like the WHATWG previously) can just come along and "fix" this and get everyone on their side. At the very least, this almost feels like a betrayal by the w3c.

The plain truth is that no one cares about free software, even when the software (a web-standards compliant web browser) is concerning one of the greatest technological revolutions in human history so far (the internet), which is just honestly sad in my opinion.

On the topic of firefox though, I hope Mozilla keeps the DRM part of the browser an opt-in to download, rather than coming directly with the firefox package itself. Anyone know if this is still the case or not? Also, does anyone know if this DRM component is in the linux packages? (The article mentions only windows vista+.)

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#123

Post by RexRollman »

yuhong wrote: post #81
mmcru wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. i try to explain to people that firefox is an open source program created by an organization that is trying to keep the web free, while chrome is created by one of the world's biggest advertising companies, but they don't seem to care enough to use firefox. i feel like mozilla should give up on the soccer mom users and focus on being the power user browser. this is already the case to an extent, but they don'…

I don't think most users need to care about it this much anyway.

It is amazing how little people care about freedom in general.

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#124

Post by oldmanjay »

cabalamat wrote: post #30
tehbeard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here I am heading towards Firefox from Chrome specifically because I can't watch DRM content in Chrome anymore (need silverlight to be able to watch GoT and Comedy central)

> need silverlight to be able to watch GoT No you don't. I've watched every episode of GoT, without having Silverlight installed (Does it even run on Linux? I've no idea).

do you pay for them or torrent? many of us reject piracy, so it would be nice to understand this.

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#125

Post by codexon »

magicalist wrote: post #110
codexon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not blame youtube as well?

Media Source Extensions (MSE)[1] were added for YouTube HTML5 video, and is different from Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)[2], which is what allows DRMed videos. MSE allows things like adaptive bitrate while streaming and programmable video buffering without a plugin. [1] https://w3c.github.io/media-source/ [2] https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/

So are you really telling me Youtube wouldn't use EME if it was there?

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#126

Post by wbillingsley »

Karunamon wrote: post #61
angersock wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Eich's stated beliefs." Where were these beliefs stated, other than a campaign contribution?

Does donating to a thing imply anything other than support for the thing? Does someone who donates to a presidential campaign envision any other outcome than election of the donate-ee? Does someone who donates to a political lobbying group envision any other outcome other than fulfillment of the lobbying group's goals? It's not like he donated to someone who just happened to have an odious belief, he donated to a gro…

Speaking generally, rather than about Prop 8, I suspect the answer to your question is "actually, yes a donation to a campaign could imply any number of alternatives".

We like to think of politics as a simple matter of supporters and opponents for the cause at hand. But in practice it seems people can be prompted by all sorts of things -- being irked by some aspect of the other campaign, a tangential issue (such as it coming from the people rather than parties), a friend or relative being involved in the campaign -- there are potentially rather a lot of reasons why someone can be prompted into donating to a campaign they might not even vote for.

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#127

Post by sp332 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #94
sp332 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We see DRM in general as profoundly hostile to all three of: users, open source software, and browser vendors who aren’t also DRM vendors." https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/ "We very much want to see a different system. Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point. In the past Firefox has changed the industry, and we intend to do so again. Today, however, we ca…

This is Firefox giving up without even attempting a fight.

Just because you haven't been paying attention doesn't mean they haven't been fighting.

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#128

Post by andrepd »

Karunamon wrote: post #46
hoopd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well allow me to extend thanks to you and everybody like you for damaging a very important Open Source project at a very important time. I understand it would have been difficult to sit down at the negotiation table with Eich and set an example for everybody of how to work with people you have disagreements with, but it would have been the right thing to do. Either way, you won. I hope it was worth it.

How do you foresee a negotiation with someone's core values progressing? There's a fundamental incompatibility there, not just something that can be talked and reasoned around. You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible? At the end of the day, Mozilla's entire mission statement is contrary to Eic…

There is nothing whatsoever in the Mozilla Foundation statement of values that is incompatible with whatever political stance Mr Eich had personally. Flushing such an important person out the door because you find his position bothersome is nothing short of repulsive.

But I'm sure you know this already. If you still don't give a damn, it's because you firmly believe that anyone that doesn't share your values on such a (fashionable) issue as gay marriage is a horrible person who deserves to be scorched clean off the company he founded.

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#129

Post by Nemcue »

teacup50 wrote: post #52
mike-cardwell wrote: post #18

And here is the end result of people leaving Firefox for Chrome. You neutered Mozilla. There is no longer a browser vendor which has both your interests in heart and sufficient power to direct the evolution of the web. Who now gets to choose which features are built into the majority of desktop and mobile browsers? Advertising companies.

Mozilla neutered themselves when they 1) stuck with an ancient, bug-riddled, poorly performing codebase for too long, and 2) tripled down on the JS/HTML/CSS trifecta of suck, and 3) then tried to use it to build an OS. Google was the only browser vendor actively trying to move the web stack beyond the technology swamp it's been mired in for so long. There are individuals today who have literally built an entire caree…

"Google was the only browser vendor actively trying to move the web stack beyond the technology swamp it's been mired in for so long."

Understand that Mozilla kind of is Google.

Where do you think Mozilla get all their money from?

Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

#130

Post by Karunamon »

hoopd wrote: post #117
Karunamon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question here is not "Did Eich's presence cause an exclusionary atmosphere at Mozilla?", which is what you appear to be arguing. As you mention, the answer is no. The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" That answer is no. Going back to your "negotiatio…

> The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" First, it's not a "diversity focused company" it's a company focused on building a Free and Open internet. Being socially inclusive in their internal culture is secondary. Moreover Eich's definition of inclusivity…

I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power.

But again, we're not worried about Eich's impact on Mozilla, which was, as you say, positive. I don't think he did abuse his power or hurt anybody by his actions at Mozilla - at least not from the 90's to 08 which is when the first inkling of his views became public.

More importantly, Mozilla does not exist in a vacuum - and in my mind, accepting this without protest equates to putting the success of a single company over the rights of untold numbers of people.

Let me try this another way. Put yourself in the shoes of an LGBT working there. Your boss appears to be a nice guy, very professional, a technical genius. He's up for promotion to C-E-frickin-O!

..and then you find out via the outrage machine that he's donating to groups whose /one and only/ reason for existing is to marginalize you.

Imagine how that would hit you.

What do you think that will do to your working relationship with that person?

Would you be proud to say you work at Mozilla after he becomes basically the guy running it? "Mozilla now run by a bigot" - and worse, that wouldn't even be an exaggeration!

Your boss apparently isn't such a nice guy after all.

Does it make at least little more sense now?

This role playing exercise aside. I really, truly, do not understand how you (the collective HN readers "you") can on one hand be upset at the community for expressing their displeasure at Mozilla (and sure, there were idiots that took it too far, but the consensus was loud and clear), and on the other hand, be perfectly okay with Eich reaching into his own wallet to help marginalize people (and having looked at the website again, linking Mozilla's name to it!![1]).

This view is fundamentally alien to me - I'm a geek, but at the end of the day, the people are more important than the computers. I cannot see the justice in placing Mozilla's well being over millions of people's basic rights.

[1]: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/

Post reply on HN