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

[Builder]

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.

Yeees! Leemote! LOL. I don't see the point of being mad at Mozilla for including small binary blobs in their code when they aren't GPL in the first place and your OS has NSA backdoors in it that transmit anything they want to them anyways. It's okay, mine does too, it just seems a tiny bit hypocritical, especially if you don't take advantage of Mozilla's open source.

 

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

No one else cares about your use case. You aren't entitled to other people's specially licensed content whenever and however you want it.

[Opcode]

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

 

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 

The Adobe middleware cannot be any worse than using Microsoft's Silverlight.

 

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.

You do understand that Firefox will remain open source, if you don't want DRM just compile it yourself.

[tbc]

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.

 

it's actually adobe's closed source code.

 

 

also, it's open-source.  compile it yourself.

 

why advocate for open-source if you're not going to use any of the aspects of open-source?

 

 

the truth of the matter is: DRM is still closed-source, EXCEPT, we've now invested into proper sandboxing of the plugin. 

 

AKA, we're making progress.  maybe it's not as fast as everybody likes, but it IS moving forward.

[LAwLz]

it's actually adobe's closed source code.

also, it's open-source.  compile it yourself.

why advocate for open-source if you're not going to use any of the aspects of open-source?

the truth of the matter is: DRM is still closed-source, EXCEPT, we've now invested into proper sandboxing of the plugin. 

AKA, we're making progress.  maybe it's not as fast as everybody likes, but it IS moving forward.

It's Adobe's closed code but it's Mozilla that is implementing it in their browser. Sure I can compile it myself, but this still means that people are starting to accept DRM more, which is bad. More people that accept it = higher risk that it start being used by others = bad for me personally. So even if I don't use it, it will still affect me.

Including DRM in a browser is not a step forward if you ask me, it's a step backwards.

A step forward would be to abolish DRM because it's a horrible horrible idea.

 

Mozilla's implementation is the lesser of two evils, but it's still evil.

If everyone boycotted DRM then it wouldn't exist, and now we are seeing one of the biggest supporters of a free web fall down to peer pressure.

[colonel_mortis]

Some of my reply uses a second source, which is the Mozilla CTO and VP's blog post on the subject. You can find it here: http://andreasgal.com/2014/05/14/eme/

 

All of those against it, you already use flash player. And Java. And Silverlight (well perhaps you don't use those last two, but you could and may do for some service). All browser-implemented DRM will do exactly the same thing. It will also be more secure (the article mentions that it will be securely sandboxed), so no need to update Adobe Flash every week. The Mozilla blog post which the source links as a source says

 

With most competing browsers and the content industry embracing the W3C EME specification, Mozilla has little choice but to implement EME as well so our users can continue to access all content they want to enjoy.

The main points from that are that it is already being implemented in competing browsers (chrome and IE), so DRM is coming whether we like it or not and Firefox users will just miss out if they don't implement it, and it is part of the W3C specification, so it's part of the standard.

Those of you talking about non-free code being in Firefox, it is a lot more free than the DRM that is implemented in Chrome and IE, and it is built by Adobe but placed within an open sourced sandbox. Mozilla has done a lot of work to ensure that users are treated well and that the system cannot be abused by remote servers. For example, while most implementations give away details about your PC, making it identifiable to the server and revealing information about the system, in Firefox your browser will be assigned a GUID for DRM purposes, which will not reveal any specific information about your system. This GUID is even unique per site, so you cannot be tracked across multiple sites.

 

Important quote:

 

As plugins today, the CDM itself will be distributed by Adobe and will not be included in Firefox. The browser will download the CDM from Adobe and activate it based on user consent.

So don't worry all of you complaining, it will not even compromise the free nature of the browser.

 

Calm Down Internet

 

Sorry if this reply is a bit disjointed, I wrote it as I read the article and found information contrary to what I had assumed when I started.

[LAwLz]

All of those against it, you already use flash player. And Java. And Silverlight (well perhaps you don't use those last two, but you could and may do for some service).

And your point is? I dislike Flash Player, Java and Silverlight as well. It's like saying "You already have a cold, so why does it matter if you get tonsillitis?". Less DRM is better, period.

 

 

All browser-implemented DRM will do exactly the same thing. It will also be more secure (the article mentions that it will be securely sandboxed), so no need to update Adobe Flash every week.

Yes they will do the same horrible things, except now it's built into the browser, and one of the biggest advocates of a free and open Internet have had to back down from that ideology.

Having it sandboxed does not mean it is more secure by the way. All plugins in Firefox are sandboxed but you still see Flash being exploited like every other week.

 

 

The Mozilla blog post which the source links as a source says

 

With most competing browsers and the content industry embracing the W3C EME specification, Mozilla has little choice but to implement EME as well so our users can continue to access all content they want to enjoy.

Basically, "since everyone else is doing this horrible thing we have no other choice than to do it too, because we don't think boycotting it will help". Boycotting it does help. If Chrome and Firefox boycotted it then chances are it wouldn't have become a standard. Sadly, both of them are going to implement it because "other browsers does it". It's circular logic.

 

Those of you talking about non-free code being in Firefox, it is a lot more free than the DRM that is implemented in Chrome and IE, and it is built by Adobe but placed within an open sourced sandbox. Mozilla has done a lot of work to ensure that users are treated well and that the system cannot be abused by remote servers. For example, while most implementations give away details about your PC, making it identifiable to the server and revealing information about the system, in Firefox your browser will be assigned a GUID for DRM purposes, which will not reveal any specific information about your system. This GUID is even unique per site, so you cannot be tracked across multiple sites.

Being open source or not is binary. You can't have something be "more open source". This is just as closed source as the DRM will be in Internet Explorer or Chrome. Just because you wrap a box in transparent paper doesn't mean you can see what's inside the box.

[colonel_mortis]

Being open source or not is binary. You can't have something be "more open source". This is just as closed source as the DRM will be in Internet Explorer or Chrome. Just because you wrap a box in transparent paper doesn't mean you can see what's inside the box.

No, the browser is open source because

As plugins today, the CDM itself will be distributed by Adobe and will not be included in Firefox. The browser will download the CDM from Adobe and activate it based on user consent.

Yes they will do the same horrible things, except now it's built into the browser, and one of the biggest advocates of a free and open Internet have had to back down from that ideology.

Having it sandboxed does not mean it is more secure by the way. All plugins in Firefox are sandboxed but you still see Flash being exploited like every other week.

No, plugins are native code that are much less restricted than this sandbox will be. All information that the plugin can access comes though the browser. Anyway, DRM isn't really exploitable, it's the other features of flash that are.

Basically, "since everyone else is doing this horrible thing we have no other choice than to do it too, because we don't think boycotting it will help". Boycotting it does help. If Chrome and Firefox boycotted it then chances are it wouldn't have become a standard. Sadly, both of them are going to implement it because "other browsers does it". It's circular logic.

No, because other browsers do it, Firefox/mozilla has to implement it otherwise at some point you will have a "web" browser (firefox) and a "netflix/youtube/twitch" browser (not firefox) because it's not supported.

And your point is? I dislike Flash Player, Java and Silverlight as well. It's like saying "You already have a cold, so why does it matter if you get tonsillitis?". Less DRM is better, period.

Sure, you dislike it, but at least now it will be in a way that is less privacy-intrusive and less exploitable, so you are a bit safer, especially when it gets to the point where it is perfectly acceptable to remove the other 3rd party plugins because the web no longer needs them.

 

DRM is already around, but at least now it will be more privacy-sensitive and will have Mozilla fighting for our rights as a DRM provider, so they are in a better position to argue for privacy. And you need less 3rd party and un-reviewed plugins in order to view the web content that you want to see.

[Misanthrope]

No, because other browsers do it, Firefox/mozilla has to implement it otherwise at some point you will have a "web" browser (firefox) and a "netflix/youtube/twitch" browser (not firefox) because it's not supported.

 

This is particularly interesting because really, you think it would be that much of a big deal if that was the case? I gotta tell you, with the possible exception of Twitch, all of thoser services are accessed way more often on things other than web browsers: usually their own dedicated apps on mobile phones, tablets, smart tvs, etc. 

[colonel_mortis]

This is particularly interesting because really, you think it would be that much of a big deal if that was the case? I gotta tell you, with the possible exception of Twitch, all of thoser services are accessed way more often on things other than web browsers: usually their own dedicated apps on mobile phones, tablets, smart tvs, etc. 

Yeah, but do you really want to be sitting at your PC watching films (movies) on your phone? It may not be absolutely necessary to have a browser that supports streaming services like that, but how much video content do you watch on your PC? Just because you can watch it in other places, it doesn't mean you should.

[LAwLz]

No, the browser is open source because

As plugins today, the CDM itself will be distributed by Adobe and will not be included in Firefox. The browser will download the CDM from Adobe and activate it based on user consent.

 

Hmm I guess it's alright in that case.  So basically, it's like a plugin...

 

No, plugins are native code that are much less restricted than this sandbox will be. All information that the plugin can access comes though the browser. Anyway, DRM isn't really exploitable, it's the other features of flash that are.

In Firefox, Flash has its own sandbox and own restrictions. My point was that just because it is sandboxed does not mean it will be more secure than for example Flash, which is already sandboxed.

We don't know how crappy Adobe's implementation of DRM will be either. It might be just as big of a security holes as Flash is (although that's pretty hard to imagine).

 

No, because other browsers do it, Firefox/mozilla has to implement it otherwise at some point you will have a "web" browser (firefox) and a "netflix/youtube/twitch" browser (not firefox) because it's not supported.

I don't see any problem with this. I am already using multiple web browsers on a daily basis, and I also got a bunch of dedicated apps on my tablet and phone for stuff like ViaPlay, NetFlix, YouTube etc.

 

DRM is already around, but at least now it will be more privacy-sensitive and will have Mozilla fighting for our rights as a DRM provider, so they are in a better position to argue for privacy. And you need less 3rd party and un-reviewed plugins in order to view the web content that you want to see.

I don't think you get it.

I want DRM to burn in hell. I want it completely removed, not made easier and more accepted. I think the more obnoxious DRM is the better, because then more people will be pissed off about it.

It's a horrible idea with no benefits and a ton of drawbacks.

[tbc]

I'm not sure you have enough software understanding to understand what these articles are telling you.

I'm not sure why you think a bug in DRM would cause security issues. A DRM module bug would mean that you're able to watch a movie when DRM says you're not allowed to.

Myself and I'm assuming the colonel would be willing to help clarify other issues, but we're not wrong about what we've said so far.

My point that this is a change for the better, but that is too slow for many people, still stands.

Eme is a good thing, because you're basically ONLY using the DRM portion of the flash plugin and not the other parts that cause show performance and provide attack surface for exploits.

[colonel_mortis]

I don't think you get it.

I want DRM to burn in hell. I want it completely removed, not made easier and more accepted. I think the more obnoxious DRM is the better, because then more people will be pissed off about it.

It's a horrible idea with no benefits and a ton of drawbacks.

Yeah DRM may not be good, but like it or not it's here to stay. At least now Firefox will support the media content of the future if you choose to allow it to and we won't have to rely on other browsers to facilitate that. Whether that really affects us or not, if Firefox did not support it then Firefox would lose it's market share even faster than it already is. And Mozilla isn't going to let that happen.

Whether this is a good move for the internet as a whole, it was the right decision for Mozilla to make in my opinion, because otherwise it would have been disastrous for them.

[Opcode]

It's Adobe's closed code but it's Mozilla that is implementing it in their browser. Sure I can compile it myself, but this still means that people are starting to accept DRM more, which is bad. More people that accept it = higher risk that it start being used by others = bad for me personally. So even if I don't use it, it will still affect me.

Including DRM in a browser is not a step forward if you ask me, it's a step backwards.

A step forward would be to abolish DRM because it's a horrible horrible idea.

 

Mozilla's implementation is the lesser of two evils, but it's still evil.

If everyone boycotted DRM then it wouldn't exist, and now we are seeing one of the biggest supporters of a free web fall down to peer pressure.

You do understand DRM has been a part of most browsers for a while now. Firefox is one of the browsers that doesn't have it (due to its open source nature). That's why this whole subject got brought up, they finally have no choice but to implement it or lose a majority of their users. Who would use a browser that can no longer stream content in the coming months. I agree DRM isn't fair when it comes to privacy, tho DRM is there for a reason.

[LAwLz]

I'm not sure you have enough software understanding to understand what these articles are telling you.

I'm not sure why you think a bug in DRM would cause security issues. A DRM module bug would mean that you're able to watch a movie when DRM says you're not allowed to.

Myself and I'm assuming the colonel would be willing to help clarify other issues, but we're not wrong about what we've said so far.

My point that this is a change for the better, but that is too slow for many people, still stands.

Eme is a good thing, because you're basically ONLY using the DRM portion of the flash plugin and not the other parts that cause show performance and provide attack surface for exploits.

So basically what you're saying is that Adobe's implementation is bullet proof and there is no possible way that it could be exploited? Seriously?

It could open up massive security holes (and if you look at Adobe's track record, it probably will). You're very naive if you think the only kind of bug in the CDM would be letting you see content you shouldn't. That's like saying the only bug in Flash Player would allow you to cheat in Flash games, or make your YouTube video look weird.

 

This change (DRM being in the HTML specifications) is a huge change for the worse.

How the hell is allowing DRM on the web, which is suppose to be as open and free as possible, a good thing? It's an awful thing.

 

 

Yeah DRM may not be good, but like it or not it's here to stay. At least now Firefox will support the media content of the future if you choose to allow it to and we won't have to rely on other browsers to facilitate that. Whether that really affects us or not, if Firefox did not support it then Firefox would lose it's market share even faster than it already is. And Mozilla isn't going to let that happen.

Whether this is a good move for the internet as a whole, it was the right decision for Mozilla to make in my opinion, because otherwise it would have been disastrous for them.

I would have preferred if they stood by their word and philosophy, instead of just going "well all the cool kids are doing it".

I could forgive them for this move if they were a company, but they are a non-profit organization which pledged to "keep the Internet an open platform". Sorry, but I don't like seeing non-profit organizations doing the exact opposite of what they have pledged to do.

 

 

I agree DRM isn't fair when it comes to privacy, tho DRM is there for a reason.

It's not there for a reason though... DRM does next to nothing to hinder piracy, and it makes the products that use it much much worse.

[Opcode]

It's not there for a reason though... DRM does next to nothing to hinder piracy, and it makes the products that use it much much worse.

DRM does in fact stop piracy, it just doesn't stop every method of piracy out there. If you did a little digging on the subject at hand, you would see Mozilla themselves are even against this (oriented around a open web). Tho they have literally no choice but to add it to the browser as these modules may in fact become heavily utilized for web content in the near future. You would also know that they propose to use a sandbox system for the module, so it never touches the users hard drive or network.

 

 

And of course Mozilla has stated this feature will be opt-in, so Firefox will come with this DRM module disabled entirely by default. So maybe life isn't so bad after all?

[tbc]

So basically what you're saying is that Adobe's implementation is bullet proof and there is no possible way that it could be exploited? Seriously?

It could open up massive security holes (and if you look at Adobe's track record, it probably will). You're very naive if you think the only kind of bug in the CDM would be letting you see content you shouldn't. That's like saying the only bug in Flash Player would allow you to cheat in Flash games, or make your YouTube video look weird.

 

 

 

what does flash player have to do with anything?

 

also, if you're going to claim that a defective DRM module is an issue, can you go into more detail about what exactly could happen and how?  for instance, do you think that it will cause your computer to explode?