Mozilla will be implementing a new DRM standard for media extensions in HTML for FireFox.

[Vitalius]

Post at /.

 

Source for image.

 

An anonymous reader writes

 

"Last year the W3C approved the inclusion of DRM in future HTML revisions. It's called Encrypted Media Extensions, and it was not well received by the web community. Nevertheless, it had the support of several major browser makers, and now Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal has a post explaining how Firefox will be implementing EME. He says, 'This is a difficult and uncomfortable step for us given our vision of a completely open Web, but it also gives us the opportunity to actually shape the DRM space and be an advocate for our users and their rights in this debate. ... From the security perspective, for Mozilla it is essential that all code in the browser is open so that users and security researchers can see and audit the code. DRM systems explicitly rely on the source code not being available. In addition, DRM systems also often have unfavorable privacy properties. ... Firefox does not load this module directly. Instead, we wrap it into an open-source sandbox. In our implementation, the CDM will have no access to the user's hard drive or the network. Instead, the sandbox will provide the CDM only with communication mechanism with Firefox for receiving encrypted data and for displaying the results.'"

Great. Hmm, I wonder if there will be a browser coming out in the near future (or may be already out) that won't have this implemented in some shape or form, but also works with most websites. We'll see. 

I personally don't like it. We just keep going over it, but DRM is a losing proposition for both parties. How many times are they gonna try crap like this?

It doesn't stop pirates. It never really does. It only makes their process of getting content slightly more annoying. I think this is a sign of things to come: Open Source Browsers. Are there any? I mean, I know some are technically that way with extensions, but still.

... I already have a name for it:

Google Ultron

Interesting comments on Slashdot:
 

Mozilla just ousted their chair over something that screws over far fewer people than this.

 

LK

THIS is a good reason to oust a Mozilla CEO.

It's important that a browser protect me and my rights on my system, not the business model of other DRM-happy corporations.

How long before someone codes a module to bypass the DRM handling?

 

What do you guys think of this idea of DRM in the webspace?

[Tocsin_786]

lets face it... in the next given 5 years there will be little to non DRM free services/software/games/whatever, whether its from an opensource software company or "EA"

[Misanthrope]

lets face it... in the next given 5 years there will be little to non DRM free services/software/games/whatever, whether its from an opensource software company or "EA"

 

re: gog.com

[AlexGoesHigh]

the hell is OP talking about with google ultron, seriously i don't get it? also what kind of web content would you put on a DRM system, i can't think of any at all

[Askew]

Circumvention will undoubtedly occur, but I'm not immediately aware of what a typical useage scenario would be.

[Murdoch]

So let me get this straight. Instead of services like Netflix / Hulu / HBO Go using third party plugins. They are going to be using a DRM system embedded within the browser. Which is an issue for Firefox because it'll be forced to implement that too. But obviously that code can't be open-source.

 

I don't see too much of a problem with that, you already have to install third party DRM plugins like Silverlight to be able to stream DRM content. If you read what Mozilla have said, they've been pretty transparent about it. Here's some key quotes from Mozilla. 

 

The W3C EME specification defines how to play back such content using the HTML5 <video> element, utilizing a Content Decryption Module (CDM) that implements DRM functionality directly in the Web stack.

 

The W3C EME specification uses a Content Decryption Module (CDM) to facilitate the playback of restricted content. Since the purpose of the CDM is to defy scrutiny and modification by the user, the CDM cannot be open source by design in the EME architecture. For security, privacy and transparency reasons this is deeply concerning.

 

We have designed an implementation of the W3C EME specification that satisfies the requirements of the content industry while attempting to give users as much control and transparency as possible. Due to the architecture of the W3C EME specification we are forced to utilize a proprietary closed-source CDM as well. Mozilla selected Adobe to supply this CDM for Firefox because Adobe has contracts with major content providers that will allow Firefox to play restricted content via the Adobe CDM.

 

Firefox does not load this module directly. Instead, we wrap it into an open-source sandbox. In our implementation, the CDM will have no access to the user’s hard drive or the network. Instead, the sandbox will provide the CDM only with communication mechanism with Firefox for receiving encrypted data and for displaying the results.

[Vitalius]

the hell is OP talking about with google ultron, seriously i don't get it? also what kind of web content would you put on a DRM system, i can't think of any at all

 

It's a joke from IMGUR. Here's the link to it (it's hilarious but potentialy NSFW although all it is is text).

Well, what this would basically do is prevent Firefox from letting you download things you had loaded into the browser. i.e. Youtube videos, movies, etc. Basically, things that were made to abuse the fact that you have to download media to view it (unless you stream it), so that you can pirate it are prevented.

Circumvention will undoubtedly occur, but I'm not immediately aware of what a typical useage scenario would be.

Agreed. Not sure what you mean? A typical usage scenario for what? The DRM?

It'd prevent you from downloading Youtube videos for example, as I mentioned above.

[Rassilon]

What's wrong with you morons? This is great. It means we can finally stop needing silverlight for Netflix.

[AlexGoesHigh]

It's a joke from IMGUR. Here's the link to it (it's hilarious but potentialy NSFW although all it is is text).

Well, what this would basically do is prevent Firefox from letting you download things you had loaded into the browser. i.e. Youtube videos, movies, etc. Basically, things that were made to abuse the fact that you have to download media to view it (unless you stream it), so that you can pirate it are prevented.

Agreed. Not sure what you mean? A typical usage scenario for what? The DRM?

It'd prevent you from downloading Youtube videos for example, as I mentioned above.

that reason alone would be google's wet dream, wonder how long tilt chrome and youtube supports it

 

What's wrong with you morons? This is great. It means we can finally stop needing silverlight for Netflix.

you don't have idea how many bad decision were made in history and recently with that mentality, one pro doesn't outweigh 1000's of cons no matter how good the pro is 

[Vitalius]

What's wrong with you morons? This is great. It means we can finally stop needing silverlight for Netflix.

That's the positive. Though I felt the "morons" comment was unnecessary.

The negative is more so that it's DRM in general. 

@AlexGoesHigh, Check that link that I didn't link like I should have. It'll be there this time. 

[Askew]

It's a joke from IMGUR. Here's the link to it (it's hilarious but potentialy NSFW although all it is is text).

Well, what this would basically do is prevent Firefox from letting you download things you had loaded into the browser. i.e. Youtube videos, movies, etc. Basically, things that were made to abuse the fact that you have to download media to view it (unless you stream it), so that you can pirate it are prevented.

Agreed. Not sure what you mean? A typical usage scenario for what? The DRM?

It'd prevent you from downloading Youtube videos for example, as I mentioned above.

Yes I meant the DRM.

[Murdoch]

What's wrong with you morons? This is great. It means we can finally stop needing silverlight for Netflix.

 

That was my thoughts. If you're already using crappy plugins like Silverlight. This will probably work a lot better.

 

I'll give you an example, BT Sport uses Silverlight it's a pretty good TV service that comes free from my ISP. However, I actually can't watch it via a broswer because it has terrible frame drop issues. It works fine on Chromecast, or in the Phone / Tablet apps. But in Firefox or Chrome it is simply too crap to even use. 

[StingBull]

I don't believe companies will be satisfied with just the HTML5 DRM, look at them now. There are some games on Steam that has 2 other layers of DRM besides Steam.

[Rassilon]

you don't have idea how many bad decision were made in history and recently with that mentality, one pro doesn't outweigh 1000's of cons no matter how good the pro is

Name three specific possible cons

[LAwLz]

Pros: We might finally stop having to rely on awful third party plugins like Silverlight for watching content which is already DRM protected (like NetFlix).

Cons: We might see a lot more stuff get DRM protected (like YouTube) which would be horrible (just think of all the videos that uses clips from other videos). Another huge con is that it is not open source. Sorry Mozilla but you can take your closed source code and shove it up your ass. I want my Firefox free as in free beer and freedom.

[Misanthrope]

Name three specific possible cons

 

1) DRM doesn't fucking works: People that wouldn't know how to bypass it wouldn't attempt to bypass it and people who would attempt to bypass it almost always find a way to bypass it.

 

2) Firefox as it stands it's already a piece of fucking shit (full disclaimer: chrome is also a piece of shit but a slightly less smelly one with somewhat better texture) Adding another layer of crap that will of course end up contributing to the massive fucking memory leaks on the thing doesn't helps the situation and at the very least development should keep a focus on patching the fucking thing not introducing more potential for crap performance

 

3) Performance lost: if you consider 1 + 2 on this list this gets exponentially more important. Also, we're on the verge of 4k content and mobile solutions are increasingly popular, this will end up just costing more battery life and issues in general as most DRM

 

4) Bonus one: I personally think it's an architecture mistake to integrate more things into the browser vs maintaining a plug in system: you are basically depending on entire browser updates instead of external plug in updates to keep things up to date. Software should focus on the most essential tasks and keep everything else outside of the main development core to keep things both stable and working. More modularity = more better.

[AlexGoesHigh]

Name three specific possible cons

@Vitalus example, you can't download youtube videos, and a lot of people do for several reason, mainly to watch it moments you can't be online

 

effective region locks, yeah they are vpns but drms can render them useless for this (which on this age is fucking stupid to enforce region locks of any kind)

 

also drm had always cause some sort of issues for the targeted user, which most of the case being that the content can't be accessed

 

lastly @Misanthrope examples are more reasons to dislike this

[Rassilon]

1) DRM doesn't fucking work ... More modularity = more better.

1) That's a statement, and also what do you think the DRM is there for? It's there to replace silverlight. Any methods they used to bypass silverlight already work, so they can keep using it, this is just a replacement. It obviously works as a silverlight replacement, not an imporvement, and people can get past it if other people decide to use it on their websites, so it's instantly not a problem for anyone. It's a hassle, tops, and I really doubt anywhere major would use it.

 

2) It's apparently impossible to multitask. Bugs are usually minimal and it for sure handles resources better than chrome does.

 

3) This is the same as the second one. Also HEVC and VP9 exist so if you're worried about performance with this, you're worried about performance in general. If they're adding it, it's probably a negligible hit.

 

4) Opinions are neat. Some people like not having things be massively fragmented. I'm not one of those, but it's a non issue.

[Rassilon]

@Vitalus example, you can't download youtube videos, and a lot of people do for several reason, mainly to watch it moments you can't be online

 

effective region locks, yeah they are vpns but drms can render them useless for this (which on this age is fucking stupid to enforce region locks of any kind)

 

also drm had always cause some sort of issues for the targeted user, which most of the case being that the content can't be accessed

 

lastly @Misanthrope examples are more reasons to dislike this

You'll be able to and I really don't buy that Google would just use this on their website. They've barely transitioned to HTML5 now, this'll be a while if ever.

[ionbasa]

Honestly this is a good thing, finally Netflix on HTML5 instead of Microsoft's Silverlight.

 

Like it or not the HTML5 DRM isn't that bad, its just a mechanism there to make sure content is being played on a device securely. Albeit, yes it will probably stop pirates from screen capturing movies off of Netflix and Hulu, but who really cares anymore.

 

I think people are over reacting. Yes I know DRM is bad, but this HTML5 implementation is the lesser of two evils, and I can live with that.

[Misanthrope]

1) That's a statement, and also what do you think the DRM is there for? 

 

DRM as well as the entire piracy thing is there as a scape goat for failing products or miscalculated revenue expectations: Let's not get into an entire different debate (not on this thread anyway) but as usual people who claim piracy affects their business usually follow a logical fallacy assuming correlation = causation because their entire premise is based on facts that are unverifiable by their very nature: How many people would have bought the item if piracy wasn't an option which we can't know for sure unless we investigate each and every copy or a statistically significant sample. This is not only ignored but misconstructed as 100% of pirate copies are considered lost potential sales which is ridiculous. (i.e. Do all women who purchase a bootleg version of an expensive designer bags could afford an exclusive designer bag if copies weren't available? Of course not, they get copies precisely because they can't afford 2,000 dollar handbags)

 

2) It's apparently impossible to multitask. Bugs are usually minimal and it for sure handles resources better than chrome does.

 

Nope. I have so much negative stuff to say about chrome I created a rant just for that specific purpose, but as resource huggy as it gets it's nowhere near as bad as the memory leaks in Firefox the last version I tried.

 

3) This is the same as the second one. Also HEVC and VP9 exist so if you're worried about performance with this, you're worried about performance in general. If they're adding it, it's probably a negligible hit.

 

You're assuming it will be a negligible hit, but you actually have no fucking idea and you're just guessing. Otherwise shows us your beta testing version that can confirm this (a.k.a. pics or it didn't happen)

 

4) Opinions are neat. Some people like not having things be massively fragmented. I'm not one of those, but it's a non issue.

 

If by some people, you mean developers, sure. Are you a browser developer? Or do you participate in any software developing in general? I agree that for the end user this should be a non-issue but not for the same conclusion: It should be completely transparent to the user who should just get a unified app with everything else running on the background. This is very basic design philosophy by the way and also why Linux has been so successful at taking over several markets already like the mobile market, a big chunk of the server market and since we're talking design philosophy this even applies to OSX and iOS so there: it's actually a lot more common to have modularity now and the all inclusive, all locked up stuff on Windows is on decline in the grand scheme of things.

[Builder]

That's the positive. Though I felt the "morons" comment was unnecessary.

The negative is more so that it's DRM in general. 

@AlexGoesHigh, Check that link that I didn't link like I should have. It'll be there this time. 

Ah yes, another internet user in valiant retaliation against "Digital Restrictions Management."

 

Pros: We might finally stop having to rely on awful third party plugins like Silverlight for watching content which is already DRM protected (like NetFlix).

Cons: We might see a lot more stuff get DRM protected (like YouTube) which would be horrible (just think of all the videos that uses clips from other videos). Another huge con is that it is not open source. Sorry Mozilla but you can take your closed source code and shove it up your ass. I want my Firefox free as in free beer and freedom.

Free as in beer and in freedom? Which OS are you using? Blag, Dragora, Dynebolic, gNewSense, Musix, Parabola, Trisquel or Ututo XS? (bonus points if you can find what these have in common) Or are you using neither free in beer nor in freedom Microsoft Windows 3.1?

 

@Vitalus example, you can't download youtube videos, and a lot of people do for several reason, mainly to watch it moments you can't be online

 

effective region locks, yeah they are vpns but drms can render them useless for this (which on this age is fucking stupid to enforce region locks of any kind)

 

also drm had always cause some sort of issues for the targeted user, which most of the case being that the content can't be accessed

 

lastly @Misanthrope examples are more reasons to dislike this

DRM does not always have issues for the targeted issue, look at Steam.

 

You don't have the right to download YouTube videos for offline use. I know you feel entitled to them, but you aren't.

[LAwLz]

Free as in beer and in freedom? Which OS are you using? Blag, Dragora, Dynebolic, gNewSense, Musix, Parabola, Trisquel or Ututo XS? (bonus points if you can find what these have in common) Or are you using neither free in beer nor in freedom Microsoft Windows 3.1?

What they have in common is that they are all free distros endorsed by the FSF obviously.

Obviously I run gNewSense on my Lemote as my main computer. No but seriously, I use Windows and don't see any problem with this. Mozilla is about being free though so it saddens me to see that they will start including binary blobs in their program.

[AlexGoesHigh]

Ah yes, another internet user in valiant retaliation against "Digital Restrictions Management."

 

Free as in beer and in freedom? Which OS are you using? Blag, Dragora, Dynebolic, gNewSense, Musix, Parabola, Trisquel or Ututo XS? (bonus points if you can find what these have in common) Or are you using neither free in beer nor in freedom Microsoft Windows 3.1?

 

DRM does not always have issues for the targeted issue, look at Steam.

 

You don't have the right to download YouTube videos for offline use. I know you feel entitled to them, but you aren't.

i know steam is one of the few cases where DRM works without problems, also i don't see a problems with download youtube videos for offline use, yes i know google wants to get this fixed to kill all the re-uploaders out there, but for my use case is not that big of a deal

[silberdrachi]

I guess i fail to see an issue with this when almost all the other browsers have capitualted to this anyway. You are also fully able to turn it off whenever you dont want to use it, though it causes a service interuption if something you want to view is on it.

 

Open source browsers arent going to solve the issue anyway people, because if the content isnt going to play without this plugin to decode it you might as well just use firefox and turn the plugin off. Open source isnt going to magically make DRM go away.

 

Yeah its a shity DRM problem but i dont see why people are jumping on Mozilla's back about it instead of companies like Netflix that basically forced them to implement it. Youre attacking a symptom of a problem and not the problem itself. Instead you should be telling these companies that demand DRM solutions for their products that they should find another soltuion or you will not use their services.