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

201–210 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#201

Post by Freak_NL »

severine wrote: post #87
dasil003 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's the endgame? Free OSes "banned" from the "open web"?

Not from the open web, but excluded from participating in parts of the web economy and content.

I am under the impression that the big content owners have renewed faith in winning the battles on the two fronts that matter to them: enforcing end-to-end controlled digital channels, from service to the consumer's own computer (DRM), and preventing the alternative of piracy.

They have learned that piracy cannot effectively be prevented by technical means, but that no longer matters if you can scare the vast majority of consumers with lawsuits and out of court settlements. This is now happening in a lot of economically strong countries.

Re: Save Firefox

#202

Post by Freak_NL »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #199

> Literally none of the dominant browsers from a decade ago are in widespread use today. Sorry to nitpick and detract from the real point here, but unless my memory deceives me IE was the dominant browser in 2006 and by a lot of measures still is. What a bizarre statement to make.

Chrome, for better or for worse, has the largest market share, by a fair margin. IE11+/Edge, Safari, and Firefox each have a good share, but none are dominant.

IE10 and lower are down to 1-2% (!).¹

[1]: http://caniuse.com

Re: Save Firefox

#203

Post by reacweb »

Currently, watching a DRM protected video requires flash and gives an inferior experience than watching a non DRM protected video. Most of the non protected video can be easily downloaded using youtube-dl. Recently, I wanted to watch a movie on M6 live (french TV). Firefox (on wine to have the latest upgrade of flash) crashed twice. As a result, I downloaded it from a torrent and removed it after watching it.

I think the current situation gives a lot of motivation to avoid DRM. If EME becomes a standard, we would lose much.

Re: Save Firefox

#204

Post by yAnonymous »

jakobdabo wrote: post #51

Isn't it trivial to reverse engineer the DRM module to create its clean room open source implementation thus effectively deprecating it?

DRM in games has gotten to the point where reverse engineering is almost impossible. Obfuscation works.

Re: Save Firefox

#205

Post by nileshtrivedi »

irq-1 wrote: post #175
sounds wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can turn it off in the options. From https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm Opt out of CDM playback, uninstall CDMs and stop all CDM downloads You have the choice to globally opt out of HTML5 DRM playback. Once you opt out, Firefox will delete any downloaded CDMs from your hard drive, cease all future CDM downloads and disable DRM playback. This affects only DRM-controlled HTML5 audio and video. To opt o…

No such option in Firefox 46.0 on Ubuntu 16.04.

Re: Save Firefox

#206

Post by jensen123 »

lomnakkus wrote: post #176
rayiner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want DRM, don't watch media that requires DRM. Nobody is making you use it. It's something you use because want to use Netflix, etc.

(Not PP.) > If you don't want DRM, don't watch media that requires DRM. Well, obviously I don't. > Nobody is making you use it. The point is that there are fears that this could change once DRM is entrenched enough -- and getting into browsers is a Big Step along that road. (Hence the talk about changing General Purpose computers into appliances.)

Yes, perhaps in the future, movie and computer game studios will lobby hardware manufacturers like Intel, AMD and ARM for locked-down hardware (non-free BIOS etc.) in order to protect their DRM.

I think general purpose computers and entertainment computers really need to be separate. Movies and AAA computer games cost a lot of money to produce, so I understand that the studios want to protect their investments with DRM. However, locked-down computers that users don't control themselves are fundamentally incompatible with a free society.

The only solution I can see for people to both preserve their freedom and enjoy some AAA content is to own 2 computers: 1 for AAA entertainment and another for everything else. Fortunately, computers are getting cheap and tiny.

Re: Save Firefox

#207

Post by tehabe »

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…

I don't even think it is Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. It's the media companies and film studios, which demand protection for their valuable products. When Netflix signs a license for a film or show, even its own, this license certainly says that is has to be copy protected, like with Blu-ray discs.

I also don't get much of the argument of the EFF. A browser which doesn't support EME can't use sites which require EME, like Netflix. Maybe my English is bad or the text badly written.

Re: Save Firefox

#208

Post by thomasz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #194
nialv7 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Because what they want to achieve is fundamentally impossible, and have to be done in a security-through-obscurity way. Which clearly cannot both be true at the same time. It isn't that it's impossible but there is actually some way to do it. It's just regular unadulterated impossible. So why not give up the charade and publish the source code to the DRM? That can't cause it to be ineffective because it's already i…

> Which clearly cannot both be true at the same time.

They meant that all they can do is delay the inevitable for some time by security-through-obscurity. And yes, the IP holders are perfectly aware of that, but preventing piracy even for a few weeks after release can have a measurable impact on their profits.

Re: Save Firefox

#209

Post by astrobe_ »

kevincox wrote: post #50
k-mcgrady wrote: post #42

Honestly, I'm not against online/streaming content being protected with DRM. I don't think it's very effective but it doesn't effect me as I don't own the content so I don't really care. This seems to be a step to far though. The browser should be a standards based 'viewer' that anyone with the will and the time can create. Let's say Netflix implements this DRM. They account for more than a third of internet traffic.…

I don't have any problems with the concept of DRM (controlling how a movie is used) but I have major issues with what is required to implement it. Essentially by definition you need to run some code that the user doesn't control on their computer. How Firefox does it isn't that bad because it is fairly well sandboxed but over time the urge will be to push it further up the stack so that gaining access to the content…

It seems to me that the implementation issue is just a symptom of a deeper problem: copyright and DRM by definition grants a monopoly. This monopoly can be abused. For instance, if you want to watch movie X and it is distributed in such a way that you have to give private data, your options are not to watch it or get a "non official" version.

Could the copyright law be extend in order to prevent its abuse and protect the consumers, for instance by using the concept of "abusive clause" [0]?

[0] http://en.wikimediation.org/index.php?title=Abusive_clause

Re: Save Firefox

#210

Post by ejlo »

severine wrote: post #87
dasil003 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's the endgame? Free OSes "banned" from the "open web"?

I think this poses a real threat to the open web itself.

First we have DRM video and soon after music.

Next the game industry wants to protect their source code. And app developers.

After that come images. A lot of companies would love to display their pictures but keep them from being "stolen".

And, at last, normal text will also be DRM'd and the open web is history.

Post reply on HN