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

91–100 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#91

Post by Klathmon »

jflatow wrote: post #81
Klathmon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But no matter what they can decide that already... User agent checking (and other fingerprint checking systems), custom plugins which are required, or even going around the browser entirely and requiring a downloadable program or app to playback. If the standard doesn't have EME, then alternatives will be made which will be much worse. EME is the best possible outcome in a world where DRM exists, and I would be just…

Well, historically all those mechanisms have been problems for the open web. To me, the question is why you couldn't achieve the same thing without making the CDM a blackbox, e.g. just by issuing license keys and standardizing the encryption/decryption of content. It seems like the only benefit to making CDMs blackboxes is that it gives publishers more control over the user's environment.

Looking at that from a publishers perspective...

That locks me in to your encryption system, and probably locks me into other things as a result. That also doesn't give me the ability to enforce other DRM things like only one playback per device, or only allowing it to happen between 7am and 7pm, it also means that i need to trust the client, whih is exactly what DRM is trying to not do (because if the publishers could trust the client, an HTML flag for "don't let them save this" would suffice.)

DRM by nature basically needs to be a black box. This just standardized how that black box hooks into the system, and sandboxes it to limit what it can look at (and so we don't have a repeat of the Sony music issues)

Re: Save Firefox

#92

Post by 0x0 »

zeveb wrote: post #82
0x0 wrote: post #26

If firefox really cared about its users maybe it should stop force-feeding "value-adds" like Hello and Pocket down everyone's throat by default.

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?

Re: Save Firefox

#93

Post by cpeterso »

mynameislegion wrote: post #45
jflatow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that to consume any particular piece of content, the publisher decides which CDM is appropriate, which effectively lets them decide who (which browser) can consume their content.

In the assumption I'm describing, it's irrelevant which CDM a publisher chooses. The reason being that the CDM must operate via EME, an open standard that can be implemented by any browser. Therefore, CDMs are inherently browser agnostic just like NPAPI plugins. Is it really true that CDMs are actually browser-specific or are able to enforce a browser whitelist? If so, that is horrific.

> Is it really true that CDMs are actually browser-specific or are able to enforce a browser whitelist?

The EME standard only covers the DOM APIs and the interactions between the video player JavaScript and the CDM. There is no standard browser API or ABI for CDMs like there is for NPAPI.

Re: Save Firefox

#94

Post by throwaway2048 »

Karunamon wrote: post #7

Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…

It dosent get rid of the "1000s of adhoc plugins" problem whatsoever, CDMs (the thing EME is merely a bridge to) are platform specific, closed source, arbitrary blobs of code that can do anything on the host system, you do not target "EME" as a streaming host you target these CDMs.

Re: Save Firefox

#95

Post by wahsd »

I just found out that Firefox removed the 3D Inspector with v.47. It's a shame because that was an excellent tool for auditing and inspecting. If you haven't had the chance, give it a whirl.

Re: Save Firefox

#96

Post by jcranmer »

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.

Re: Save Firefox

#97

Post by sounds »

azakai wrote: post #47
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.

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...

This makes a difference. You won't be able to watch EME-locked content, but every time you try, a content publisher will have to come up with the resources to send you the page with the locked content, all to no avail.

Of course, you'll probably either cancel your Netflix or find a workaround. But you won't be casually supporting EME on sites you never knew were using it. Your every day browsing will automatically block EME.

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

Re: Save Firefox

#98

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Save Firefox

#99

Post by zbyte64 »

azakai wrote: post #47
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.

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.

Consumers have the power but not the knowledge. Users have the knowledge but not the power.

We don't like EME for technical reasons that the average consumer does not understand. Consumers will embrace EME because it connects them to content providers and not doing so would be like the linux users from over a decade ago who couldn't run flash.

Re: Save Firefox

#100

Post by mynameislegion »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #71
Klathmon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. As far as I knew, EME was the solution to the problem they were talking about. A standard way to allow anyone to run one of those CDMs and removing the publishers as the gatekeepers.

its a standard for the sites themselves to run a certain CDM, its totally unspecified on the browser side IE, firefox cannot use google sandvine, even if you have chrome installed, because it is not a standard interface from the browser's perspective. CDMs are absolutely not browser agnostic like NPAPI.

The specification is called EME.

> Beginning in version 47, Firefox desktop also supports the Google Widevine CDM.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm

Post reply on HN