Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
1–10 of 220 posts
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#2I'm curious as to why anyone would want this?
I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility.
But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#3I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
The DRM plugin is downloaded and installed automatically with the "normal" version of Firefox. So if you don't want to be downloading purposely-obfuscated proprietary Adobe binaries, you have to install this version.
Also, by default, EME activates on any webpage that requests it.
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#4I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
Although I am sure the situation is more subtle than reported, I am reminded of this old ELER:
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/taking-freedom-furth...
"What better way to justify the proprietary bits of [Firefox] than a practically stooge [browser] to point at whenever we're questioned!"
All this has happened before. All this will happen again.
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#5I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
You might worry that you wouldn't notice which sites are using it. Or you might want to send a message to sites, or to Mozilla, that you think DRM is bad and that you don't want to have DRM implementations installed.
One of the worst things about each browser vendor's decision to support DRM is that it makes the choice to require DRM less costly for new web sites that are considering it. So even if you think Netflix could never have been budged, random site X might now say "cool, we can control what people can do with video on our site, at a surprisingly low interoperability cost to us!". If you want to avoid that outcome as an end-user, you have to do whatever you can to increase potential DRM adopters' view of the market share they will put at risk.
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#6I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
The DRM plugin is downloaded and installed automatically with the "normal" version of Firefox. So if you don't want to be downloading purposely-obfuscated proprietary Adobe binaries, you have to install this version. Also, by default, EME activates on any webpage that requests it.
If you disable EME (in the Firefox Preferences menu by unchecking the "Play DRM content" checkbox), Firefox will delete the Adobe CDM binary if it has been installed.
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#7I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
Publishers who want to protect their content against piracy and don't want to use cumbersome expensive solutions. Traditionally DRM has been a hassle for legal users, expensive to publishers, and complex to encode and host video. Having a browser standard would make it convenient to users and publishers.
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#8I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
Publishers who want to protect their content against piracy and don't want to use cumbersome expensive solutions. Traditionally DRM has been a hassle for legal users, expensive to publishers, and complex to encode and host video. Having a browser standard would make it convenient to users and publishers.
The original commenter was asking why people would want to prevent their browser from having DRM support, rather than why publishers would want DRM. (For DRM opponents, having convenient and standardized DRM is worse in many ways because it is more likely to be adopted in more circumstances.)
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#9The direct link isn't end-user friendly: http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/38.0/wi...
Consider a better integration with the download button/page.
Re: Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support
#10I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.
Although I am sure the situation is more subtle than reported, I am reminded of this old ELER: http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/taking-freedom-furth... "What better way to justify the proprietary bits of [Firefox] than a practically stooge [browser] to point at whenever we're questioned!" All this has happened before. All this will happen again.
"We see DRM in general as profoundly hostile to all three of: users, open source software, and browser vendors who aren’t also DRM vendors." https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/
"We very much want to see a different system. Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point. In the past Firefox has changed the industry, and we intend to do so again. Today, however, we cannot cause the change we want regarding DRM." https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challen...
"this is a radical, disheartening development in the history of the organisation" http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-cl...
So no, it's not really more subtle than reported. This is Firefox fighting and losing.