DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
blog.mozilla.org
DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#2> Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content.
At first glance this may seem pretty "reasonable", but it really isn't. It's like putting a backdoor in every Intel chip (such as say through TPM 2.0), and then just telling people "look, if you don't want the backdoor activated, you can disable it - Now here's the list of 10 instructions to do so..."
It's an illusion of choice, and nothing more. While some may be content that this option exists, the reality is that DRM is now getting pushed to billions of users out there through the web, as the default for soon most video platforms.
I don't fully blame Mozilla for this. In fact I blame Netflix first, and Google and Microsoft second. This Gang of Three is the one that made it happen in the first place. But I am saying that Mozilla's attempts to alleviate our concerns aren't very effective or particularly useful.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#3> Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content. At first glance this may seem pretty "reasonable", but it really isn't. It's like putting a backdoor in every Intel chip (such as say through TPM 2.0), and then just telling people "look, if you don't want the backdoor activated, you can disable it - Now here's the list of 10 instru…
It's off by default, though. Isn't that the opposite of your scenario?
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#4> . We face a choice between a feature our users want and the degree to which that feature can be built to embody user control and privacy.
It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM).
> Firefox users would need to use another browser every time they want to watch a controlled video
Irrelevant for many users of DRM-free OSes (like Linux) who won't have any DRM backend for EME anyway. I.e. it really sounds like "users would need another OS".
> Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content.
I hope there will be a switch for disabling the whole EME altogether. Even better, I'd prefer builds of Firefox free of any DRM sickness. It's very unfortunate that this garbage is finding its way into the open source browser which always stood for the users' rights more than many others.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#5This is incredibly shameful. It's now only a matter of time before images, CSS, JavaScript, hell, even the text, are delivered through OS-specific, locked down CDMs. It will start with pissant sites nobody cares about (like the ones who are currently fighting AdBlock), but eventually a large site will demand it - most users will be using a device that handles this, and we will literally never have the Open Web ever again. (If you can't imagine how this would be done, go look at a restaurant website without Flash. Replace Flash with a gigantic EME-required media element. It's closer than you'd think.)
I get that slippery slope arguments are often problematic, but DRM has always been something where we've slid down as much as is allowable as soon as it is allowable. The broadcast flag, Macrovision on DVDs, SCMS, Cinavia, etc. are just a few examples of this.
Highly recommended reading is also this post, which discusses how Mozilla will implement EME: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
I also don't feel the 'open source sandbox' will be permissible by most developers of CDMs. My opinion is that mozilla will waste countless cycles implementing EME that won't be acceptable to the content mafia. Adobe is not the only player in this space.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#6> . We face a choice between a feature our users want and the degree to which that feature can be built to embody user control and privacy. It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM). > Firefox users would need to use another browser every ti…
> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM
Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#7> . We face a choice between a feature our users want and the degree to which that feature can be built to embody user control and privacy. It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM). > Firefox users would need to use another browser every ti…
> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.
DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#8Is it part of the nature of the DRM technology that it can't be walled off in an XPI? I find myself thinking the change would be significantly more palatable for those who care deeply about the division of open and closed source if Mozilla could implement this by building a video-supporting XPI that users can choose to not install (thereby verifying that no closed-source blobs are living in their browser, spying on them or whatever closed-source blobs do that is so undesirable).
Edit: Ah, I see. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi... clarifies the intent to remove plugins from the web altogether.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#9> . We face a choice between a feature our users want and the degree to which that feature can be built to embody user control and privacy. It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM). > Firefox users would need to use another browser every ti…
> majority accepting unethical practice like DRM Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.
Movie rentals existed before Netflix. It's always been technically possible to make illegal copies of movies. But most people would rather have a legal option. Otherwise everyone would skip Netflix and just use the Pirate Bay.
Edit: To be clear, I'm saying that people will pay for a legal streaming service even if they could rip it off for free.
Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users
#10This is incredibly shameful. It's now only a matter of time before images, CSS, JavaScript, hell, even the text, are delivered through OS-specific, locked down CDMs. It will start with pissant sites nobody cares about (like the ones who are currently fighting AdBlock), but eventually a large site will demand it - most users will be using a device that handles this, and we will literally never have the Open Web ever a…
I think the bigger issue is how little the vast majority of technology users understand these issues. To them, so what if the movie studio wants to limit what people can do with a copy of their movie. "We've got streaming movies from major studios, yay!" they all say.
And I don't know how you educate folks. These are the same people who would shrug their shoulders and say "So what," about NSA wiretapping. "I don't have anything to hide."
There is no thought given to the possibility of abuse in the future once these rules or systems are entrenched and standardized.
And now I officially sound like RMS-lite ;)