[deleted]
Save Firefox
61–70 of 266 posts
Re: Save Firefox
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a little confused by this comment. What status quo? Silverlight is deprecated. Flash is (at least seems to me) taking its final breaths. HTML5 pushed many web native standards for open media: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/Usin... . In fact, the HTML5 video/audio was so open that YouTube had to kill a Chrome extension that allowed users to use YouTube as a music source without advertisem…
Problem is that Netflix & co are stuck with Flash or similar because content owners will not allow it to be streamed/provided without DRM. So currently it's Flash with no alternative. EME is not the ideal situation from the consumer's PoV, but it's on par with flash (maybe a bit better) and preferable to nothing* . It would be a net loss if previously unencrypted content would now become encrypted, but I don't think…
Problem is that Netflix & co are stuck with Flash or similar because content owners will not allow it to be streamed/provided without DRM
That's the content owners' problem, not Netflix&co. Let others produce open content that does work with an open web, and let's see how long the content owners will stay unmoved.
Re: Save Firefox
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the idea with EME was to create a standard interface to those CDMs. That way the entertainment companies can't be gatekeepers, as the CDM will work in any browser that implements EME, even your own that you made from scratch.
I'm not 100% clear on the technical side of this but according to the article, in order to implement the 'standard' you require permission from the entertainment companies as they control the CDM. So they're the gatekeepers. Is this incorrect?
Yes I think it works like this: publisher decides CDM, and EME describes a standard interface for all CDMs.
The trick, which EFF points out, is that CDMs are allowed to be blackboxes, and publishers can create their own and distribute them any way they see fit, which effectively lets them determine which browsers may consume their content.
Re: Save Firefox
#64Earlier 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…
I don't think it's really different. I don't think DRM have ever prevented any content from being freely available on the internet, they merely annoy legitimate users who paid for it (or would have paid for it if the content had been readable on their system)
Re: Save Firefox
#65> This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them have a CDM, or this part of the "open" We…
I've read many articles critical of EME and this is the first time I've heard this information. If true, as you said, it is THE issue. It was always my assumption that EME represented a standard way for CDM's to interact with the browser. EME is to CDMs as NPAPI is to plugins. That is to say, a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard. Is this assumption completely false?
a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard
Nope, it's the opposite. The CDM API is not standardized and in practice every browser uses a different CDM: Chrome has Widevine, Firefox has Adobe, IE/Edge has PlayReady, and it's not clear what Safari uses.
Re: Save Firefox
#66There is a way to protect the content by adding per-user (subscriber) watermarks in the video/audio streams. Thus, no one will need these shady CDMs and Co. Of course, you say, you can try to find those watermarks/etc. But in the same way you can try to circumvent CDM code as well. Still, it will allow to eliminate proprietary extensions from the web standards.
Re: Save Firefox
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't know that. I think that Netflix, Google Play Movies, etc. are the only valid use for DRM: high value content that is rented. Types of DRM that are bad magazines this is just my opinion, are eBooks, music, etc. that are purchased. I donate a few times a year to EFF and FSF. I think there are occasions when DRM is OK, and even though I almost exclusively use Linux laptops (just converted my last Mac to Linux t…
There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).
I think mark_l_watson has a point, when it comes to renting or streaming content DRM is the publisher's method of control.
It's when I purchase a single player game that is online only that I get angry.
Re: Save Firefox
#68Isn'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).
Re: Save Firefox
#69Earlier 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…
> but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different
Why? Genuine question.
DRM doesn't save new movies from piracy - new releases still hit the public torrent sites extremely quickly (sometimes before release).
And I don't understand what CC has to do with DRM. One is an intellectual property license, the other is a bucket of suck that categorically cannot work if users are to be allowed control their own machines.
Re: Save Firefox
#70> [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…
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.
I don't have an issue with them including it, but to make it impossible to remove in an easy 1,2,3 clicks like you can with regular extensions is absolutely asinine. Browsers need to be more modular in this respect but I may be the minority with this opinion.
I wish browsers were more like uzbl, where the default were a simple browser and add-ons were like linux distros. You could have a firefox browser distro with a firefox branding and plugins to get great features but be able to remove them easily or strip it to its bare core.