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

221–230 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#221

Post by toyg »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #197
toyg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was the delusion that you're protecting anything worth Dude, that's just not how you make friends and influence people. He knows all the arguments, he said it. Wouldn't it be more interesting to try to find with him a way we can all work together towards a better future, without attempting to shame the counterpart into a public admission of moral failure which will, of course, never happen? That's why Linux has bee…

> If there was a safe way to deliver what they want (encrypted tamper-proof streaming) in an open-source package, they would likely consider it. But there isn't, afaik. The problem is fundamentally that "encrypted tamper-proof streaming" is not possible regardless of whether the implementation is open source. It would be trivial to write free software that respects copying restrictions. And then people would be able…

> The problem is fundamentally that "encrypted tamper-proof streaming" is not possible

In an absolute sense maybe not, but you can have decent approximations. As OP points out, music ended up being ok with watermarking. Hollywood might be ok with something like hardware tokens (which imho would be superior to "just download and execute this blob and shut up").

> There is no risk to money or jobs.

If that was the case, we wouldn't be hearing musicians crying foul about Spotify every other day.

> Eliminating DRM would reduce piracy by improving the experience of legitimate purchasers

At current prices, that's unlikely. The experience is not terrible with current players either; what drives privacy at this point is mostly price. Hollywood doesn't want to give up margins that are unrealistic in the digital age, which is why they fixate on DRM.

> When you encounter someone [...] You teach them that it isn't possible

There is teaching and there is shaming. Shouting at them that they are morally-corrupt buffoons is not "teaching".

Re: Save Firefox

#222

Post by Chris2048 »

toyg wrote: post #129
pdkl95 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

> Was the delusion that you're protecting anything worth Dude, that's just not how you make friends and influence people. He knows all the arguments, he said it. Wouldn't it be more interesting to try to find with him a way we can all work together towards a better future, without attempting to shame the counterpart into a public admission of moral failure which will, of course, never happen? That's why Linux has bee…

slut-shame? Is that a good analogy?

Re: Save Firefox

#223

Post by majewsky »

Ileca wrote: post #128
yborg wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Uncheck "Play DRM content". You need to turn this on about:config browser.eme.ui.enabled true to allow the checkbox to be displayed. FF 46.0.1 OS X.

I didn't have to turn this on. It's in Content section by default... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm media.eme.enabled to false to disable EME if you want to tweak the config.

I had to turn it on: FF 45.x-esr on OS X (cannot specify ".x" because apparently the "About Firefox" dialog is broken).

Re: Save Firefox

#224

Post by majewsky »

hyperdunc wrote: post #172
maker1138 wrote: post #52

The biggest problem is intellectual property. Copyright lasts life + 70 years and patents last 20 years. That's a long time to have a legal monopoly on something, and is partly why companies are so big and can behave so badly. Innovation comes through competition, not monopoly. Ideally, we'd eliminate patents and copyrights altogether, but as a compromise, I think having terms of 3 years, with no renewals, is fair. T…

I doubt reducing the monopoly period would stop companies from pushing DRM, but the length of IP protection is ridiculous and has to change. 3 years will never happen, though. 10-15 years for copyright and 5 years for patents is more reasonable.

I saw a study some years ago that compared the interests of copyright holders of that of consumers, and concluded that 14 years after initial publication (non-renewable of course) is the optimal duration for copyright.

Re: Save Firefox

#225

Post by majewsky »

wmf wrote: post #68
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?

And then it's trivial for the DRM creator to sue you under the DMCA. I also suspect that CDMs can update (this is called "renewability" in DRM newspeak).

That's the large problem here. If you wanted to get the content out, it would be more effective to obtain a HDCP master key, since that one is embedded in a lot of deployed physical devices and thus cannot be easily changed (AFAIK). A CDM in a webbrowser can be updated today and content distributors could stop using the old key tomorrow already.

Re: Save Firefox

#227

Post by majewsky »

Honest question: How relevant is DRM in preventing piracy in non-interactive media?

Consider a theoretical world in which DRM would reliably prevent unauthorized copying or decryption of DRM-secured content 100% of the time. The obvious attack vector for pirates would be to play the video and audio and just capture it with a camera directly in front of the monitor, and a microphone attached to every speaker.

Are pirates doing this today, or is it just not worth it because DRM schemes are easily circumvented? I'm quite confident that copying of the physical signals should produce good results. There are consumer cameras capturing 4K video, and a video that's distorted by a non-orthogonal view on the screen can trivially be fixed in software. (It loses some fidelity, but you should still be able to get near-full-HD output out.)

Re: Save Firefox

#228

Post by samuellb »

0x0 wrote: post #92
zeveb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Firefox really cared about its users maybe it shouldn't have broken the security of Firefox Accounts and Sync. It used to be secure; it no longer is.

Source?

[I edited my answer, because now I read that new system is claimed to be end-to-end secure as well]

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sync-your-firefox-bookm...

In the old system your data was encrypted with a key that was only stored on your devices. Adding a new device meant that you had to do a kind of key exchange process (which was perceived as complicated[1]).

When Mozilla introduced the new system there was very little information on how the data was encrypted. I think the documentation only said that they used TLS (or something like that). But when reading their current documentation I see that it's not the case; they are apparently encrypting your data with a key derived from your password. So if you use a (cryptographically) strong password it should be secure[2]. Assuming that it works as documented of course.

[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-adopts-plain-vanilla-passwo...

[2] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-sync-upgrade-fr...

Re: Save Firefox

#229

Post by samsonradu »

jeena wrote: post #139
JoshTriplett wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix was the largest site using Flash. Netflix didn't use Flash; it used Silverlight. > don't disagree with what you say, but it's possible to see EME as a pragmatic inevitability, assuming that browsers want to get rid of plugins Or browsers could just collectively get rid of plugins, and the media industry could whine ineffectually at the lack of DRM. They're not going to build their own browser, and people wo…

I never understood why it needed to be build into the browser, why isn't Netflix just a (native) app like Popcorn Time?

Native apps need to be installed and kept up-to-date, bringing portability issues. I now have to install the app on all devices I need to watch Netflix on. Meanwhile, all devices have a browser installed.

Re: Save Firefox

#230

Post by jessriedel »

Karunamon wrote: post #20
jessriedel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree, but isn't it plausible that a centralized standard allows DRM to become more prevalent? Right now lots of copyright-able content is begrudgingly released freely to attract eyeballs, but that could decrease if DRM becomes more seamless.

The DRM makers still have to write, ship, and get people to install the decryption piece - EME just gives it hooks into the browser (and allows said plugin to be appropriately sandboxed, restricted, and treated like the hostile black box piece of crap that it is). So in other words, probably not any more than the current system.

Good answer, thank you.
Post reply on HN