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

151–160 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#151

Post by Endy »

jgon wrote: post #46
anexprogrammer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If FF had declined to put EME in the build (as many believed they should) then perhaps some pressure could have been brought to bear. At this stage, I don't think it matters who you email, it's done.

Incorrect. If Firefox had not put it in, nothing would have happened because programmers have (largely) decided to give chrome a majority market-share amongst them, and advocate it to their non-technical peers, increasing its market share amongst that group as well. If programmers actually used firefox and advocated it to the point where it had a majority market share then maybe their refusal would carry some weight.…

I don't understand anyone's desire to support a Google-backed browser.

Re: Save Firefox

#152

Post by xyience »

jcranmer wrote: post #96
azakai wrote: post #5

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only…

You're slightly wrong. The people you want to put pressure on is not Google, Microsoft, and Netflix--it's people like the MPAA and the RIAA, who are the ones obligating that Netflix do this sort of stuff to get access to the content.

This is better, but still not enough. You can only put pressure on all of these parties (and others) by going to the top: change the law. This at least has a better chance at succeeding than telling people to not watch great shows.

While I wait for that to happen or not, I'll continue not using Chrome, IE/Edge, or Netflix -- nor buying music or movies except in a form I can copy and distribute and play on local devices with no network and no proprietary or secret bits. EME existing or not doesn't affect me one bit.

Re: Save Firefox

#153

Post by incompatible »

icebraining wrote: post #102
throwaway2048 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EME is not even a complete standard, its basically just a shim to bridge in a closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform, and needs specific DRM module support from providers. You cant just target EME as Netflix, or some other streaming site, you have to target Google Widevine, or Apple Fairplay etc. Implementing EME in no way enables you to use these DRM technologies, so its a 100% wo…

closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform I don't know about other browsers, but at least Firefox is sandboxing EME modules so that they can only do a few approved things (security bugs aside, of course).

Perhaps the new browsers can implement the Firfox interfaces and install the same proprietary modules if they are so inclined.

Re: Save Firefox

#154

Post by Endy »

scholia wrote: post #122
wmf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why corrupt the Web? Why not just tell people to install the app?

First, the app only works on Windows 8/8.1/10 and a lot of people are still running earlier versions of Windows. Second, many of the people running Windows 8/8.1/10 know so little about apps that they're "against" them.

Even understanding them doesn't make you necessarily 'for' them!

Re: Save Firefox

#155

Post by gajjanag »

sounds wrote: post #97
azakai wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be. If consumers stop using EME-supporters' browsers, things can change quickly. We have the power, but sadly not the will.

Actually it's not that hard: 1. Go to https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ 2. Click on the largest version number (46.0.1 right now) 3. Select "EME-free" under your OS 4. Select your language of choice For the lazy: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/46.0.1/mac-EME-... https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/46.0.1/win64-EM... https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/46.0.1/linux-x8... Thi…

On most Linux distributions, Firefox is built from source and then shipped via a package manager. At least on Arch, --disable-eme is not passed as a configure flag. Yes, one could build Firefox oneself, but it is a beast to compile. It is also ridiculous that this needs to be done at build time.

A perhaps easier approach that should work based on the name (but have not confirmed) is to lock via the user.js method user_pref/lockPref("media.eme.enabled", false). If this works as intended, then simply make this config file part of the deployment should be enough.

Re: Save Firefox

#156

Post by [deleted] »

jflatow wrote: post #138
takeda wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is also reason why Google, Microsoft, Netflix all support EME. It essentially makes it harder for new competitors to emerge.

That would be consistent, and relates to the main question I have: Why does the CDM need to be a blackbox? Couldn't the decryption be standardized with all proprietary information boiling down to secret license keys?

[deleted]

Re: Save Firefox

#157

Post by zanny »

jflatow wrote: post #138
takeda wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is also reason why Google, Microsoft, Netflix all support EME. It essentially makes it harder for new competitors to emerge.

That would be consistent, and relates to the main question I have: Why does the CDM need to be a blackbox? Couldn't the decryption be standardized with all proprietary information boiling down to secret license keys?

The CDM depends on whole-pipe proprietary implementation. You cannot implement, say, a video decoding library that is both open source and prevents the user from rerouting the video output away from HDCP HDMI sinks.

Re: Save Firefox

#158

Post by Endy »

scholia wrote: post #124
BoysenberryPi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vivaldi?

Vivaldi is (a) new; (b) based on Chromium; and (c) not actually open source. (I use both Vivaldi and Firefox, but not Chrome.) Historically, Firefox has been the main user-entered browser, but not the only one. Especially if you include forks.

Vivaldi also shares a design lineage with Opera 12 and previous, in terms of who the designers are/were. When we lost Opera, I think we lost the open web in a lot of ways. As much as Opera was a closed-source proprietary engine etc. browser, it stood out against the background of the larger Web giants. When they folded and gave in to Google, I was horrified.

Still, the loss of a Community Firefox is a bad thing.

Re: Save Firefox

#159

Post by nialv7 »

jflatow wrote: post #138
takeda wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is also reason why Google, Microsoft, Netflix all support EME. It essentially makes it harder for new competitors to emerge.

That would be consistent, and relates to the main question I have: Why does the CDM need to be a blackbox? Couldn't the decryption be standardized with all proprietary information boiling down to secret license keys?

Because what they want to achieve is fundamentally impossible, and have to be done in a security-through-obscurity way.

Re: Save Firefox

#160

Post by zanny »

dasil003 wrote: post #24
azakai wrote: post #5

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only…

Your last sentence is exactly right. Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no le…

> The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have.

The only reason the MAFIAA is lobbying the W3C and bribing Microsoft / Google / et al to support their backwards DRM is because the web has leverage over them.

There would have been no market for this if there was not publisher demand for baked-in proprietary DRM at the browser level, because they knew they were constantly losing revenue depending on broken flash / silverlight plugins.

If these companies had not caved to their demands, they would have had to accept gradual obsolescence since the web would have been wholly incompatible with their outdated business model. Because, up until this point, the web has been demonstrably more important to people than access to traditional big media IP, because they were losing revenue and market share.

Post reply on HN