How Firefox Will Handle DRM In HTML

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.'"

Comments

Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[CRCulver]

In our implementation, the CDM will have no access to the user's hard drive or the network

As with all DRM schemes, it's only a matter of time before this is broken. However, to save the decrypted content to the hard drive, one has to, well, have access to the hard drive. Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content? Might have to switch browsers if that's the case.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Microlith]

Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content?

I doubt it, but it's likely that the CDM will attempt to check the Firefox binary and assert that the one loading it is signed by Mozilla and refuse to operate otherwise.

It's the CDM's job to fight off attack attempts against itself, not Firefox's. All Firefox will do is attempt to isolate the (undoubtedly security hole riddled) CDM and protect the end user from it - but given the closed source nature of the CDM this may not be possible.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Microlith]

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

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it, but it's likely that the CDM will attempt to check the Firefox binary and assert that the one loading it is signed by Mozilla and refuse to operate otherwise.

Just LD_PRELOAD a shim, then. The binary can be signed all they want...

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Ash Vince]

As with all DRM schemes, it's only a matter of time before this is broken.

DRM being crackable is not actually that important, what matters is how difficult it is for the average user. You only have to make it slightly tricky or add some slight perceived risk to downloading pirated stuff and they will choose to pay for it instead. For most people with a bit of cash the hassle factor of DRM is what keeps them on the straight and narrow, for the people without cash who cares, they probably would not have paid for it anyway.

Some people who pirate lots of stuff eventually grow into big paid consumers of stuff when they get a bit money, but when they do they often end up forgetting about their strict stance on DRM and just sign up with Netflix or Lovefilm or whatever based on how convenient it is for them. Who cares about keeping a copy of the latest crap to come out of content permanently, just give us lots of stuff to watch on demand and most of the time as consumers those of us with money are happy.

Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content?

It's not really the job of browser vendors to make sure you can be a freeloading shithead is it? Their job is to make a product that as many people find useful as possible and that means a certain amount of mass appeal. Refusing to support this part of the standard would have robbed Firefox of more users than they will lose by supporting it.

The reality is that people who view piracy as some sort of moral duty and right like you do are in the minority, that is why most of the public quite happily go along with more stringent copyright laws being drafted by the politicians they elect. That means that creating a browser that will be unusable for certain sites that want to protect their content will just drive users away.

BTW, I actually also think DRM is a joke and a complete waste of space and that more companies should trust us to buy their content if we like it. I spend a fortune on services like netflix and cable TV. I also think though that people who refuse to pay should do without, pure and simple. Anything other than that is freeloading off those of us who pay.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Blue Stone]

>Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content? Might have to switch browsers if that's the case.

Remember, DRM doesn't just stop 'piracy', it stops fair use of copyright content too.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[wagnerrp]

How are you going to check the binary if you've explicitly isolated the CDM from any access to the system? Either you allow the CDM direct access to the OS so it can perform the check on its own, or you can provide an interface that can be trivially spoofed. If the CDM access the OS directly, aside from the security implications that causes, now your open source OS can attack it in the same exact manner, returning whatever information the CDM wants to see, rather than the reality.

The simple truth is that you cannot have open source anything anywhere within the code chain from the point the content exits the CDM to the point the content is sent along with wire to your display device. If you are breached anywhere, then your system is insecure, and if your system is insecure, your content will be stolen and freely distributed on the internet. All you've prevented with all this DRM is the typical honest customer from being able to flexibly access the content in the manner they chose. The typical honest customer needs to be taught this, that DRM has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and everything to do with artificially restricting their abilities. Education is the key to fighting all forms of oppression.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Redbehrend]

DRM isn't the problem is how overboard the companies go with the DRM. Like it was stated already companies want hardware info, hard drive info and probably even webcam images. I feel a simple effective user friendly DRM is fine, anything more than that will start a new war on the Internet. Hurting them and the user more than its helping anyone. Remember when ads didn't try to take over your computer?

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[petermgreen]

I'd say the opposite

If the plugin is running in a tight sandbox it should be easy to modify the sandbox to send the video to somewhere other than the screen without the plugin having any way to detect that this is going on.

Of course this way you will have to re-encode so there will be a performance and quality cost but it should be easilly doable and work for any website that uses this drm infrastructure.

And if you do want to hack the plugin itself (to avoid re-encoding) I can't imagine it will be too hard to poke a hole in the sandbox as well.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[CRCulver]

The reality is that people who view piracy as some sort of moral duty and right like you do are in the minority, that is why most of the public quite happily go along with more stringent copyright laws being drafted by the politicians they elect.

Come visit us in Eastern Europe sometime. Furthermore, even in more affluent countries, it seems to me that an enormous proportion of the youth are getting their music from YouTube, not from buying CDs or purchasing legal downloads. You can find nearly any album from any era on there. Yes, Google might send a little bit of advertising revenue to whoever complains, but most of those songs were uploaded by a third party, not the copyright holders or artists.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[DreamMaster]

That's what I don't understand about this whole DRM-in-the-browsers thing. It's all well and good to have the data sent as an encrypted stream, but when it hits the browser, even if it the decryption is run in a sandbox, as per TFA, eventually it needs to render the data on the browser window. And since since the browser source is open, what's to stop someone very easily building their own executable with extra code to intercept video and sound output and saving it as a video file? As far as I can see, in-browser DRM doesn't seem to make all that much difference as to whether people could steal content.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[MozeeToby]

Even if you had the most 100% rock solid DRM, mathematically proven to be unbreakable and cryptographically secured, you cannot stop pirated content. If absolutely nothing else, people will use screen capture software and grab it that way. If things really go to shit and there's watchdog software on every PC preventing screen capture from happening while DRM content is playing, they'll pipe it over to a separate PC and capture it there. If you manage to block that they'll take apart a monitor and grab the data stream from the internals of the monitor itself. If you somehow find a way to block that, they'll point a camera at the damned things and capture it that way. The analog hole cannot be plugged and once it's broken and posted the DRM is effectively broken for everyone.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Microlith]

Either you allow the CDM direct access to the OS so it can perform the check on its own, or you can provide an interface that can be trivially spoofed.

This is where I doubt that they can actually sandbox it. The CDM needs OS access so it can try and leverage nonsense like Windows' Protected Media Path. I'm not sure what they intend to do with the sandbox, realistically.

I still doubt that Firefox will, or can, do anything to protect the CDM.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Microlith]

It's not really the job of browser vendors to make sure you can be a freeloading shithead is it?

It's not really the browser's job to defend other processes from your assault, now is it? We'd call that malware in any other context.

Anything other than that is freeloading off those of us who pay.

No offense, but the industries in question are making money hand over fist. No real loss is occurring.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Microlith]

That's why they are only permitting the DRM module the bare minimum it requires to do it's job. Thus protecting your system from unauthorised access by the DRM module.

And I don't believe for a moment this is possible. Not by fault of Mozilla, but by what is necessary for the CDM to function and enforce the DRM protections.

The moment a browser (or OS) tries to put in technological measures to defend against the owner, your computer is not yours.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[CRCulver]

You can think negatively of pirating all you want, but my point was that, in spite of the OP's claim that pirating is some kind of fringe behaviour, getting whatever music and films one wants from pirate sites instead of purchasing a CD or DVD, is normal for a majority of people in many countries now. There are few shops in Eastern Europe to legally purchase the breadth of content people want, and the prices of what CDs and DVDs are available are considered prohibitively expensive against local salaries, so watching films or getting one's music* from pirate sites has been the usual way of consuming content since broadband first became available here in the early millennium.

(* As I mentioned above, it may be that YouTube has now become the standard venue for listening to music. While some copyright holders may be getting paid for this, whether the upload is authorized or not, is not something that troubles the average person.)

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[NotDrWho]

you cannot stop pirated content

The goal isn't to stop it, it's to make it complicated or risky enough that the average person will pay for it instead of pirating.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[lgw]

No one is forcing you to consume the DRM'd content, if it offends you.

I think this will end up with the ideal solution: DRM good enough to make the content providers happy, but constrained enough that, well, the impossibility of the underlying task will be revealed in certain circles.

Remember, Netflix doesn't actually care whether anyone pirates their streams. They care that they have fulfilled their contractual obligations to protect their streams. The way I see this playing out, everyone wins except perhaps the IP owners. Utility maximized.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Anonymous Coward]

You only have to make it slightly tricky or add some slight perceived risk to downloading pirated stuff and they will choose to pay for it instead. For most people with a bit of cash the hassle factor of DRM is what keeps them on the straight and narrow, for the people without cash who cares, they probably would not have paid for it anyway.

Then there are people like me. I have a bit of cash but have no desire to trade any of it for a product that will be actively hostile to me, or to reward a company who continues to lump me, the paying customer, in with the same group as pirates.

If the company wants to give the pirates a better product than their paying customers, where the paid version limits me in stupid ways (aka forcing me to have/connect/power an optical drive for their installer media while the software runs 100% from internal storage - or forcing me to waste hardware resources on a dongle/key) then I will do without their product while they do without my money.

If the company wants to load their DVD or whatever with unskippable ads for other equally unscrupulous companies, pop up a 60 second long unskippable picture telling me how much prison time I will get for obtaining this video in any other way, despite the fact I already have the preferred medium and paid to get it - then I will do without that product while they do without my money too.

Give me a product that doesn't slander me personally, and isn't limited more than the version the pirates would get, and I have no problems sharing that bit of cash in return. I do so frequently, and "a bit" is a surprisingly large value in this case compared to how I would normally use that phrase.

Additionally for software at least (not so much movies/tv in this case), I am one who many other people solicit recommendations from.
Sure, there are "only" around 300ish people who will make purchasing decisions on my recommendations, but if I dispise your product or your company, I will not be mentioning either unless it is to sway one against it.
When I do like the product or company I tend to ramble on and on about how much I like it and exactly why (perhaps ramble more than non-geeks would prefer, but that gets balanced out by the excitement in my speech that tends to get picked up on)

You can only burn the ignorant once before those people are no longer ignorant and share the same hatred of how they are treated. Even after "changing your ways", many won't bother to give a second chance and will continue to repeat their original bad experience.

This simply can't be a good long term business approach. Yes the pool of ignorance is pretty large, but it is shrinking every moment.
It's only a matter of time until such practices are universally hated by the majority, and those companies practicing them plus all future ones who plan to do so will fail.

I also think though that people who refuse to pay should do without, pure and simple. Anything other than that is freeloading off those of us who pay.

I agree completely, although for different reasons.
People who don't want the product as-is SHOULD refuse to pay and do without. They should also take a moment to inform the company that their product was considered and ultimately rejected as even an option, and be specific about exactly WHY.

I do not feel the pirates are freeloading off of me, or anyone else who pays for that matter.
In fact I don't feel personally or directly harmed by the actions of pirates, with exception of occasionally being jealous that better options are given to them than are even available to me.

But I DO blame the pirates for basically indirectly rewarding companies that clearly do not deserve reward. The companies must know it isn't always about price. They need to learn somehow, and piracy only sends the wrong signals and causes confusion that gets interpreted (purposfully for evil, or honestly out of ignorance) as their actions are acceptable if perhaps it was only a little cheaper.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Anonymous Coward]

your content will be stolen and freely distributed on the internet

Repeat after me: Piracy is not theft.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[DrXym]

And person can also "get" a cable or satellite TV stream. The "getting" is not the problem so much as decrypting it.

The principle is the same regardless of the medium - the video / audio in the stream is encrypted with a key which changes frequently. The DRM supplies the key when the stream asks for it. That's what EME facilitates - an extra events on video / audio objects to say "I need a key" and an api to plug it in. It doesn't say where this key comes from or how the video object uses it to decrypt the data.

I expect most browsers will support a "null" DRM and a couple of DRM schemes from commercial providers. The "sandbox" is to obfuscate how the DRM gets the key and caches it, and how it decrypts the data.

No DRM is uncrackable of course but some have stood the test of time better than others. Theoretically any cable / sat stream can be decrypted but it's about doing it in a timely fashion which is the problem. I expect the second line of defence is to watermark content (eg with IP address, timestamp, user id) so that even if it falls down the analogue hole or is ripped, that there is at least a way to find out where it originated from.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[ultranova]

For most people with a bit of cash the hassle factor of DRM is what keeps them on the straight and narrow, for the people without cash who cares, they probably would not have paid for it anyway.

The problem is, the Pirate Bay Edition typically has far less hassle than the official "disable CD burners and phone home" version. DRM creates a constant hassle, installing a no-DRM patch is a one time thing.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[DrXym]

I doubt your rights will be affected in the slightest. If you don't want DRM, disable it or use a build which doesn't contain it.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[MightyYar]

Seems like Jay-Z might be ripe for parody. Something involving an elevator.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[MightyYar]

Problem is that it also complicates usage. The music industry eventually gave up - I suspect a similar outcome with the film industry, but it'll be a long, devastating fight.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[MozeeToby]

You missed the last point of my post. All it takes is a single dedicated person to crack the DRM and it will be available on streaming, downloading, and torrenting sites all around the web in a matter of days. Anything even moderately popular (and therefore able to be monetized) can be found. DRM at the stream level is like going after people recording radio onto cassette tapes; even if we agree that pirating is a real problem, those particular pirates are not part of it.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[westlake]

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

DRM may be Important to you, but, quite clearly, looking at the success of streaming media services like Netflix, Pandora, etc., it is far less important to others.

The question then becomes whether protected content will be distributed through a general purpose web browser or a dedicated, branded and proprietary app --- an app that can absorb many of the functions of a browser and be installed across many in-home and mobile devices.

The geek who fears the "walled garden" needs to think this problem through carefully.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[N. Criss]

If I steal your boat then you have no boat. If I "steal" your information then we both have the information. Copying is not theft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[bl968]

If I buy a glorious big boat, and somebody on the high seas steals it, then by any definition that is theft. Further, this sort of theft on the high seas is piracy!

But in that case you are deprived of all use and enjoyment of the big boat from that time forward; that is not the case with intellectual content.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[znrt]

but that really is an issue you should be taking up with the content provider. If you don't like it, just avoid all DRM'd content.

true. but this is only true the moment a major browser indulges in suporting this drm crap. this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby. and doing so is in total contradiction with any form of advocacy for an open web. it is clear that mozilla, under present management, has more important priorities than an open web, so all this ceo-talk is just the usual bullshit you'd expect from ... well, a ceo. oh wonder.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[westlake]

You can think negatively of pirating all you want, but my point was that, in spite of the OP's claim that pirating is some kind of fringe behaviour, getting whatever music and films one wants from pirate sites instead of purchasing a CD or DVD, is normal for a majority of people in many countries now.

The most accessible and desirable content is likely to be the big budget Hollywood product. "Frozen" was translated into over 50 languages. Which sort of sucks if you are trying to preserve a national, regional or ethnic culture --- or build an export market of your own.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[peppepz]

DRM being crackable is not actually that important, what matters is how difficult it is for the average user. You only have to make it slightly tricky or add some slight perceived risk to downloading pirated stuff and they will choose to pay for it instead.

No, skilled users will pirate the contents and serve them to the average users in a form that is even more convenient to consume than the DRM-ridden one.

Refusing to support this part of the standard would have robbed Firefox of more users than they will lose by supporting it.

The EME non-standard cannot be supported by open source platforms. It's not a matter of Mozilla "refusing" to support it, it's mathematically impossible for them to support it in a meaningful way. A EME-enabled site implicitly refuses any user running Firefox on Linux. So it's EME itself that robs Firefox of its users, not Mozilla's decision to support it or not.

The reality is that people who view piracy as some sort of moral duty and right like you do are in the minority, that is why most of the public quite happily go along with more stringent copyright laws being drafted by the politicians they elect.

Even if that were true, it doesn't make those laws any more just. In some places of the world, the vast majority of people believe that gay people should be hanged from a crane in the public square.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

No, DRM *is* the problem. DRM is malicious in the sense that it tries to control the user's computing in unacceptable ways.

DRM is also a symptom of proprietary software, which is also bad.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[peppepz]

The DRM "plugins" will only be available on OSes where the user isn't allowed to capture screen or audio output when restricted content is being played. That's Windows, OSX and all kinds of NSA-enabled tablets. People using other means to access the Internet will be locked out forever.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

The moment a browser (or OS) tries to put in technological measures to defend against the owner, your computer is not yours.

Then don't use it, if you don't like DRM then don't support the companies that use it. Stop giving your computer away in exchange for some Hollywood film.

The battle against DRM should not be fought at the platform level, that is obvious stupidity. If you are opposed to DRM then effort should be spent to either convince content producers not to use it or convince users to boycott DRM content because there are plenty of closed platform vendors that will implement DRM and if open platforms demand no DRM then do you think content producers or users will support such platforms? Outside of geeks nobody cares about the platform, it is just a mechanism to get the content they want.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[bzipitidoo]

Much of this conversation is beside the point. You talk like DRM is an acceptable tool for a desirable motive. It is neither.

Not only is DRM an unsound idea that simply does not work, it and the idea of intellectual property it's meant to protect are immoral. That's right, immoral. Our very ability to communicate with each other, and share valuable ideas and information, is at the core of our intelligence, and is what put us on top of the animal kingdom. Sharing is a natural right. To give that up, voluntarily give that up, is to embrace a new status making us no better than sheep, fit only to be fleeced repeatedly. These scumbags in the content industries have misunderstood, perhaps deliberately, the differences between ownership and authorship, and the material and scarce vs the immaterial. Authorship does not mean the power to deny all usage and derivate work, until they get around to individually approving each proposal and only if they please. They are out to control all communications, stifling that which they can't manage, which by necessity would be the bulk of all communication as they haven't the means to handle the sheer quantity, by asserting that they should be compensated every time people share anything they were in any way involved in, and that the only fair way to accomplish this is by controlling all copying so every single occurrence of it can be taxed. And of course to do that requires extreme control of the sort necessary to make DRM actually function somewhat.

If there are risks in fighting DRM, it is our civic duty to take those risks, to preserve the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard to win for us. The risks are in any case little enough. The control freaks who want to monopolize and monetize all content do not have the power to go after everyone. There are other ways to compensate artists. Big Media still doesn't want to be bothered trying them, and admitting that they might work. Instead they have the gall to ask the rest of us to make the truly insane sacrifices it would take to really make their horrible vision work, and act as if they aren't asking much, putting on this hurt and baffled attitude and crying that artists will surely starve. We are NOT going to give up the Internet, flash drives, cell phones, home movie theaters, or even public libraries and used book stores. We are not going to turn the clock back to the 1980s, and artists will not starve and art will still be created.

This ramming of DRM down our collective throats and into the HTML standard is at best a waste of effort that will have no effect. At worst, it will harm the Internet, slowing it down and blocking some things. If, somehow, it kills the Internet, Big Media would celebrate. That's the kind of trolls they are. But it won't accomplish the destruction of the Internet or the elimination of piracy. I think the only reason the DRM was allowed is that we knew it would be ineffective and only slightly damaging if that, and so we could afford to humor them in this matter. And they problably bribed key people, maybe tried some threats too.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

DRM may be Important to you, but, quite clearly, looking at the success of streaming media services like Netflix, Pandora, etc., it is far less important to others.

The key is convenience, if DRM doesn't get in my way then I don't care. Even if you are a conspiracy theorist and these nefarious programs are taking control of your system then what's the argument? "Oh no they have control of my Apple TV or non-privileged control of the VM I remote into from my TV-connected PCs ... the horror!" Even if (and that's a big "if") that were the case I still don't see any major issue there.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

Repeat after me: Piracy is not theft.

What's been taken is the exclusive right to control distribution of specific data, yes it is just data but just because you have shared it with specific people doesn't mean you waive all rights to it and allow it to be shared with everybody. If somebody shared your medical or financial records or perhaps your banking credentials would you consider that ok? Perhaps the print of the key to your house and/or car? It's data you only share with specific people and data you retain the right to control distribution of so would you be happy for somebody to take that right away from you and just share all that data with everybody?

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[fahrbot-bot]

Seems like Jay-Z might be ripe for parody. Something involving an elevator.

Is Solange from Ipanema?

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[khellendros1984]

user friendly DRM

That's a contradiction in terms, right there. DRM is friendly if it does something *for* me. I'll agree that there's more and less cumbersome DRM implementations, but the argument that less-cumbersome DRM is in *any* way friendlier than no DRM at all obviously falls flat on its face.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[kwbauer]

Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.

Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[kwbauer]

but legally they have been defined as the same thing so until you have a bigger army/police force/voting block/whatever, your definition does not count as much and most people working for a living don't have major issues with the concept of getting paid.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

No, DRM *is* the problem. DRM is malicious in the sense that it tries to control the user's computing in unacceptable ways.

It's not unacceptable because plenty of people use services like Netflix and Pandora that do have DRM. You might view it as unacceptable so don't use those services and don't support that content.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[west]

Oh God. Another one who is not content with stealing, but also has to pretend it's moral because... well, they're not stealing from me!

I don't consider piracy to be a huge crime (it's a theft of economic opportunity, really), but the self-righteous "it's okay if it's *me* that's stealing" gets on my nerves.

The funny part is that as soon as you start with examples of how moral it would be for Amazon to steal their music/book/game and sell it as their own, it instantly turns into "that's evil - that's stealing from me".

Steal or not, that's your business - but can the "they deserved it".

You want what they make, and you don't want to pay for it. That's all the justification you need. It's certainly all the justification you have.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[wagnerrp]

Suppose the CDM actually emits encrypted HDMI data - most monitors today can take HDMI input.

Applications cannot emit "encrypted HDMI data". They output graphics, which the graphics card composites with other graphics, and then outputs over HDMI. That violates any ability to sandbox the application. That also requires the application have custom code to support each architecture on each operating system you intend to be usable on. It also requires the graphics card be able to accept encrypted graphics from the data, to protect it from the browser. All of this could be avoided by simply ditching DRM and letting the browser handle things.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Then those people are ignorant, since DRM is for suckers.

You might view it as unacceptable so don't use those services and don't support that content.

I already don't.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

Then those people are ignorant, since DRM is for suckers.

That sentence right there pretty much proves you don't even know why you hate it, you've been told it's bad, believed that an propagated that idea. Even if you were at the height of conspiracy theories and actually believed that it could take unprivileged control of my VM what's it going to do?

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

That sentence right there pretty much proves you don't even know why you hate it, you've been told it's bad, believed that an propagated that idea.

I despise DRM because it tries to restrict me. I despise DRM because it often harms actual customers. I despise DRM because it treats me as some sort of criminal.

With that said, that sentence you typed pretty much proves that your a child molester. Hey, while we're just making shit up and pretending we know what the other person thinks, why not go all out?

Even if you were at the height of conspiracy theories and actually believed that it could take unprivileged control of my VM what's it going to do?

It is about control over your computing. As long as you have software that maliciously treats you as a hostility and unjustly restricts your actions, you do not have control, even if you fully own the machine.

For similar reasons, I do not use proprietary software.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

I despise DRM because it tries to restrict me. I despise DRM because it often harms actual customers. I despise DRM because it treats me as some sort of criminal.

And if it doesn't get in your way? If you don't even know it's there? I can use AppleTV to watch Netflix and I don't see any DRM because the exact thing that I wanted to do is accomplished.

It is about control over your computing. As long as you have software that maliciously treats you as a hostility and unjustly restricts your actions, you do not have control, even if you fully own the machine.

For similar reasons, I do not use proprietary software.

So what? All i'm doing is watching a fucking video on the TV and look how bent out of shape you're getting about needing to control every aspect of it.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[mysidia]

How are you going to check the binary if you've explicitly isolated the CDM from any access to the system?

By requiring the sandbox to prove that it passes a validation with an attestation using credentials that are not available to the user.

Intel Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) / TPM come to mind. The TPM allows for secure storage and secure reporting of some security related metrics.

The Sandbox can't spoof a validation of the trusted status of the Sandbox program, because the digital signature needs to be made by the hardware

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby.

No it is a feature the that the content producers make use of, if you don't have it you can't view their content so Mozilla are providing users the option. If you don't like it don't use it and if you are really paranoid then Firefox is open source and you can remove it completely and you would be no better or worse off than before.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

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

And you can have that because this is open source software. Mozilla doesn't have to do what you feel is important. The whole advocacy of free software is such that the user can change/remove things he/she does not want and even to fork it if they don't like the developers' ideology.

The solution is there, it's the solution you have been advocating for so stop bitching that Mozilla isn't catering to your specific needs in every way you demand them to and use it, it's Free Software!

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[wagnerrp]

The credentials are available. All you have to do is write your own CDM to request them. Add a layer in the middle to relay the authentication between the browser and the true CDM. Once validation is performed, the data passed between the two would be unencrypted, as trying to encrypt and then decrypt the video every step of the way would bring any computer to its knees.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[znrt]

Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.

Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.

and yours is a good example of rethorical tautology. people also pay bank bailouts and it doesn't mean they demand them.

i see nobody demanding drm support here: https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... nor here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/b...
do you?

interestingly, if you read through the thread for this bug, you will have a clue about who is actually requesting this crap:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone thinks the Parent is over the top, consider that the ultimate enemy of the DRM-purveyor is _any_ feature that allows the PC user to maintain control over the 'bare metal' system. A person who uses a VM-centric Qubes setup to prevent the core OS from being attacked, for instance, would necessarily pose a threat to a DRM scheme because giving the user control over the hypervisor also gives them the power to examine and inferfere with the proprietary DRM code that is running inside a VM.

In the near future, do not be too surprised if DRM loaders refuse to run inside the VMs you use for keeping your systems secure. And do not be surprised if some commercial VM vendors add proprietary extensions to exclude certain DRM schemes from the hypervisor's control in an attempt to maintain compatibility.

The entire concept of DRM requires any/all computing devices carrying "the content" to be re-conceptualized as appliances. And not just any sort of appliance... but the kind that contractually forbids the user to go poking around inside (whether with a screwdriver or a keyboard). Its inimical to personal computing itself.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[znrt]

this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby.

No it is a feature the that the content producers make use of, if you don't have it you can't view their content so Mozilla are providing users the option. If you don't like it don't use it and if you are really paranoid then Firefox is open source and you can remove it completely and you would be no better or worse off than before.

i'm fine with that. and there are already forks that stay away from this and many other sneaky marketing stuff (see iceweasel for example). i expect that as firefox becomes more and more a marketing trojan horse those forks will just take its place. it's the circle of life! :D my comment was just about the moronic explanation and hypocritical excuses from the ceo. no big deal!

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

If the content that people want becomes DRM-free then DRM will have no purpose and cease to exist so fighting DRM at the web browser level is moronic, it will only drive people who want that content away from that browser and if you don't want DRM content then this doesn't affect you anyway. There will always be a vendor that will provide a DRM platform so long as the customers demand DRM content so battling it at the platform level is pointless, if you want DRM to go away you need to either convince customers to avoid DRM content or content producers to stop using DRM.

So I'm not sure what the complaint is here, for those who don't like DRM this is no issue, for those who want DRM content this allows that and if you are an anti-DRM crusader then you would be looking at users or content producers anyway.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[znrt]

i made no complaint at all. it was just laughing off the ceo's discourse. trying to justify this while claiming to strive for an open web will always be hilarious..

i also stated that drm is crap, but that's just an opinion, and even the whole world buying into it wouldn't change it.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[FriendlyLurker]

No one is forcing you to consume the DRM'd content, if it offends you.

Superficially your right - but missing the point. Why the FUCK am I forced to adopt DRM by having it attach itself to open protocol specifications that I use, then? Now my browser will just automagically switch to using it at any old websites request. I preferred the old way, where people who were happy to voluntarily submit to DRM decided to download all the invasive DRM plugins they liked and it all worked perfectly for them - THERE WAS NO NEED to literally force the vast majority of people who do not use DRM to suddenly have built in support for it, so it can be just used by any old website now without all the plugins.

The question is rhetorical by the way - we all know why it was backdoored into our open protocols. To FORCE DRM DOWN OUR THROATS WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. They were losing too many customers who had to jump through extra hoops to use their evil shit.

So superficially you would be right - but in reality DRM is being forced on us and Firefox and other browsers can try to lube it up as much as they like with their open source wrappers, like that makes any difference. The floodgates are about to open and in a few years the whole web is going to be one giant clusterfuck of DRM content. Tim Berners-Lee, how could you get it so wrong.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[RivenAleem]

When has DRM stopped piracy? Got any examples of truly effective DRM that wasn't circumvented?

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[AmiMoJo]

DRM being crackable is not actually that important, what matters is how difficult it is for the average user. You only have to make it slightly tricky or add some slight perceived risk to downloading pirated stuff and they will choose to pay for it instead.

In practice the DRM tends to make piracy the easier and less risky option. Who would want to waste money on something that they can only watch on one or two devices, and which will one day stop working when the server gets shut down or a new, compatible OS is released?

Users are getting wise to you-only-licensed-it scams and "not available in your region" locks, and piracy is often the best alternative. For commercial companies to compete they need to release DRM-free files, like the record industry was eventually forced to do with MP3 downloads.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, but it's also a question of the corporation saying "if you don't have DRM we don't want to do business with you, take it or leave it". Of course they are wrong, it's actually "take it or take it" thanks to The Pirate Bay, but you get my drift.

Hopefully there will be an about:config flag to disable the DRM if you don't want it.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

you are so brainwashed into just parroting the FOSS line that you cant even explain *why* you oppose it.

I already explained. That you cannot read is not my problem; it's yours.

but the real joke is that while you go on and on desperately trying to further your crusade against DRM and proprietary software on your personal computer you freely put your life in the hands of proprietary software that you cannot and have not examined every time you use a bus, train, car, plane, etc.

You seem to be comparing having proprietary nonsense on your own machines (and therefore not having control of your own property) with other people having proprietary nonsense on their property (where they don't have control). A bad comparison.

You also seem to be saying that because you cannot escape proprietary software completely, you should stop trying to do so at all. Well, that's just the perfect solution fallacy, and it's a fallacy for a reason.

And as for a car, I do not have such software in my car; I made sure of that.

Do you have an argument that isn't a logical fallacy?

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

And if it doesn't get in your way?

DRM always restricts functionality, even if you personally don't encounter the functions. It still implicitly treats you as a criminal. I find both things unacceptable.

So what? All i'm doing is watching a fucking video on the TV and look how bent out of shape you're getting about needing to control every aspect of it.

Because I do not have an opportunity to learn about what is happening. Putting aside the fact that companies don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to privacy (or not using outright malware, like that Sony rootkit garbage), I simply like to know what things are doing.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[westlake]

If I steal your boat then you have no boat. If I "steal" your information then we both have the information. Copying is not theft.

Information you have illegally acquired and therefor have no right to possess. Information that has significant material value. To me that looks like theft --- and in the US you can serve hard time on the felony conviction.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[DrXym]

Now, where will my less-tech-savy family get a build which doesn't contain it?

Your "less-tech-savy family" doesn't give a rat's ass about DRM. Nor do the majority of people. And for those that do, well this will prove the motivation to find 3rd party build for themselves, or follow the instructions to disable the functionality in Firefox or even produce their own build.

I guarantee you that far more people would prefer a browser that supports Netflix (and any other premium video provider) out of the box.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[NotDrWho]

The average person doesn't use pirate and torrent sites. And even if they did, one letter from their ISP saying "This is your warning. Knock it out." or blocked site and they're going to stop and just pay for it instead.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[lgw]

Well, if you like open source for some reason beyond tribal identification, you could always write up something that disables that module load. But no possible choice Mozilla could make would change the contract between Netflix and the IP owners, so it's DRM-or-nothing for streams like that. And of course by "the vast majority of people who do not use DRM" you mean four of the five guys who rant about it on Slashdot, right? I mean, Windows Phone has a bigger market share here.

If you really care, go write a Firefox plugin that detects the load of the DRM module and instead of doing that, starts torrenting and playing the same title through the browser. Seriously - hit the Netflix site to start the torrent, and watch heads explode. If you actually care, that is.

Meanwhile, I'm with TBL: this DRM will be as successful as the TPM - it will fill the narrow commercial need it was pushed for, and everyone else will cringe and fail to adopt.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[bzipitidoo]

You want what they make, and you don't want to pay for it

No! For starters, we demand a share of the vast savings technology has enabled. We built the Internet. It's far, far cheaper to download an ebook or mp3 file than to obtain a paperback or a CD. An author's share of a sale via physical media was a dismally low percentage of somewhere around 5%. With much of the overhead eliminated, that should improve. Industry has grudgingly accepted this, but that's only the start, and they're still a bit high.

But the core of the matter has not been addressed. Copying is so cheap and easy that trying to regulate, tax, and impose levies on it is now the biggest impediment to sharing. It's like being asked to pay stud fees to breed horses for riding, when we all use cars now. It's an obsolete and harmful business model. A good near term goal is the digitization of our public libraries. We should be able to download anything the library has, anytime we want. No trip to a library building needed, no waiting in line at the counter to check out physical media, no having to return physical copies by a certain date or get hammered with late fees, even to the point of having a warrant put out. And no more card catalogs. The library would be so much more searchable. Why can't we have this? There are business models that work well with the digital public library, but the dinosaurs of Big Media refuse to believe any of them could really work, and instead have done all they can to block and delay progress.

they're not stealing from me!

They are stealing from us. What do you think copyright term extensions are? Suddenly everything created after 1926 was snatched back out of the public domain. And, are you aware of the raw deal researchers get? Turn over all rights, for the privilege of getting published. Technically, researchers can't give out copies of their own works, without permission from the publisher! Some publishers have tried to take advantage of this by locking everything behind paywalls. Research paid for by the public, denied to all of us and the authors! You heard about Aaron Swartz, didn't you?

But the biggest theft is that we can't legally create a digital public library, and reap the immense savings and huge increases in capabilities and capacities going digital would bring. Are we all just going to sit this out, while the likes of Google puts together their version of the digital library that isn't quite as public as it ought to be?

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[david_thornley]

The typical user doesn't specifically want DRM, but a whole lot of them would like to be able to watch current movies on something like YouTube. Those will come with DRM, despite what Mozilla and typical users want. If a user wants something that only comes with DRM, the user is likely to want DRM available to enjoy that.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[david_thornley]

When a thief stole my laundry quarters a long time ago, I wound up without laundry quarters and had to get more. If the thief had copied my laundry quarters, I wouldn't really have cared.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[david_thornley]

The legal right to control distribution still exists. It hasn't been taken. The original data still exists. It hasn't been taken.

The harm is based on why I want to control distribution. Some data I share, like financial and medical, is only for use by certain people, and use by other people could directly harm me. In this case, the data is intended for public distribution for payment. Disney has no objections to me, or anybody else, seeing their latest movie; all they want, really, is that they get paid for it. To put it another way, if Joss Whedon had the choice of giving me free access to his medical records, his financial records, or the Avengers movie, which do you think he'd choose and how hard a decision would it be?

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[david_thornley]

Legally, copyright infringement isn't theft. Different laws entirely. They're both illegal, of course, but so is distributing cocaine, and that's neither theft nor copyright infringement.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[david_thornley]

DRM can be in my face (the unskippable FBI/Interpol warnings that pop up on my legitimately purchased DVDs, the fact that my son couldn't run a legitimately purchased copy of Knights of the Old Republic until I hit Pirate Bay), or it may not be (on books purchased for my Nook or my Steam games). If DRM stays out of my way and allows me to buy something I like, it's user-friendly. It may still be evil, but it's user-friendly.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[StarFace]

Actually, speaking globally the average person with access to technology does pirate media and software. They might not be using Bittorrent, but the guy that burned the 500 Best Software DVD likely is. The average person is buying it from a street vendor. So with distribution as with the initial crack, it only takes a few people to facilitate, or "mainstream", if you wish, piracy.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[david_thornley]

It seems to me that I can communicate just fine as is. I can talk about the latest Captain America movie all I want; what I can't legally do is hand out free copies. Heck, when I get it on DVD I can invite friends over to see it, just fine. This is freer than Mary Poppins was when I first saw it, since there was no way to watch it except at the theater on their schedule.

DRM, when well done, just enforces the sort of restrictions that used to be inherent in the media. This isn't forward thinking, but in itself it's no more harmful than needing expensive equipment and reels of film to watch a movie. Disney used to find it a lot easier to allow people to watch specific Disney movies on Disney's schedule, since they controlled the film and there were no other copies. Currently, I can watch Mary Poppins at home any time I want, although I had to buy the DVD when Disney wanted it sold.

It seems that a lot of your attitude about DRM is primarily about copyright law, which is a different subject. I don't like DRM in any case, but I find some aspects of copyright law desirable.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[west]

Copying is so cheap and easy that trying to regulate, tax, and impose levies on it is now the biggest impediment to sharing.

Well, with handguns, it's really easy to just shoot me and take my stuff, so I'll claim that simply because it's copying is easy, does not mean it should not be restricted. As for information, I'm not all that thrilled about having anything I produce be copied by corporations (who are in a much better place to do so) just because it's easy and cheap for them to do so.

*However*. Just as I approve limited use of taking things by force if there's a sufficient social benefit (i.e. taxes), I also don't have a problem with the taking of intellectual property when social benefits outweigh the social cost of seizure. Thus, while I am a strong believer in intellectual property, I *don't* believe in this progressive copyright extension any more than I believe in infinite patent extension.

Personally, I'd be okay with life of creator or 28 years, whichever is longer. After all, the creator is paying taxes on the benefit of the property until then, so it is a matter of partial benefit of from their creation followed by eventual total seizure of the work. Essentially it's a death tax of 100% for intellectual property, which I'm okay with.

(It would suck for my children, but that's the penalty they pay for choosing parents who make intellectual goods rather than physical goods.)

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[khellendros1984]

DRM doesn't "allow" anything; it restricts what a user can do with the protected media by its nature. It's IP-holder-friendly, but user-hostile. I'd call some DRM implementations "unobtrusive" or "better than not having the product at all", but not "friendly", and certainly not friendlier than DRM-free media.

In general, I agree with your viewpoint, just not your terminology.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[bzipitidoo]

That's a bad analogy. Copying does not compare with a shooting. Much better to compare copying to consensual sex.

If there are no spies, moles, blackmailers and the like among the participants, the chance of outsiders learning that it happened is very low. If all parties are virus free, no one gets hurt. If they're also using contraceptives effectively, consequences are limited to whatever 3rd parties might discover and become sanctimonious, jealous and angry about. But copying is even easier. Two people can swap flash drives even faster and more discretely than they can have sex. They can also do it more anonymously than even two partners separated by a wall with a glory hole. Can use a drop off, so they don't have to both be present at the same time. Minors down to the age of 2 could swap flash drives.

Laws against sex with minors are difficult to enforce, but desirable and doable. The public wants these. Still, there are pitfalls. For instance, if someone draws cartoons of child porn, is that illegal? On the other hand, laws against sodomy don't have much public support. What harm are two consenting adults doing to society by so engaging? None at all. This point goes double for copying. No one is getting hurt, except in the imaginations of intellectual property supporters. Do you think a levy upon sex could ever be successfully imposed? Think of the businesses that are hurt because they can't collect levies on every act of sex!

Obviously, sex is absolutely vital to our survival. Sharing is almost that important. One of the biggest transfers of information is school. We freely educate our children. We provide them with textbooks. We ought to do a better job with those books, stop handing millions to publishers whom we do not need, and instead create open ebooks. It's beginning to happen. Our civilization depends on this transfer of knowledge to our children. Science also depends upon sharing of knowledge. We have a number of urgent problems we need to work on. If our civilization collapses because we didn't puzzle it through fast enough because we were all forced to wait around for permission to share, it may be no more than we deserve for being such idiots. That is the activity that these parasites of the intellect want to restrict and control, claiming it is for the sake of those poor starving artists who have so many other ways to make a living from art.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[CRCulver]

The average person doesn't use pirate and torrent sites.

As I posted in response to another user, you really ought to visit the world outside North America or the UK. I know from my day-in, day-out experience here in Eastern Europe that the vast majority of people do use pirate and torrent sites. That has been the usual way of getting the content we want since broadband first came here in the early millennium. Paying for authorized downloads is not at all popular, and people only buy the physical media (which is prohibitively priced considering local salaries) if they particularly treasure the film/album in question or want to give it as a special gift to someone else.

"one letter from their ISP"? ISPs here just don't care. Me and my friends torrent hundreds of gigabytes a month and no one at the ISP bats an eye. In fact, when I first signed up for broadband over a decade ago, my ISP gave me the address of a huge filesharing server where I could trade pirated content with other people in my town at lightning speeds.

Having travelled widely all over the world and see the same internet culture in Russia, China and India, I feel pretty safe claiming that, globally, the average internet-connected person does use these sites. Those that don't are still buying physical media from a bootleg seller who likely did use those sites to burn the DVDs he sells.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[west]

Wow, now that's an analogy I didn't expect.

My analogy was chosen to refute "simply and natural => okay". Violence is simple and natural. Two year-olds can swap drives. They can also hit each other with them.

Likewise, the fact that you can probably get away with it does *not* have any bearing on how ethical an activity is.

Can we at least agree that ease of doing so and chance of getting caught has *nothing* to do with whether a behaviour is desirable or not? It may make a difference to enforceability, but that is completely different to whether a behaviour is ethical.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[mysidia]

The credentials are available. All you have to do is write your own CDM to request them.

I'm referring to the TPM passing a digital signature certifying a security metric; effectively attesting that the Sandbox and the CDM, and everything up the stack validate.

The hardware TPM chip doesn't pass its secret credentials; it only digitally signs things. The CDM can validate the digital signature, but it doesn't get the secret key needed to sign a false attestation that neither the CDM nor the Sandbox have been tampered with.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

DRM always restricts functionality, even if you personally don't encounter the functions. It still implicitly treats you as a criminal. I find both things unacceptable.

If you find that unacceptable that's fine, that doesn't make everybody else ignorant.

Because I do not have an opportunity to learn about what is happening.

And because most people don't want to that makes them ignorant?

Putting aside the fact that companies don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to privacy (or not using outright malware, like that Sony rootkit garbage)

Not really relevant when I'm just watching TV or using Netflix in a disposable VM, it is a black box so I treat it accordingly.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

The legal right to control distribution still exists. It hasn't been taken.

Wrong, you do not have control over the distribution, obviously. If you did then people whom didn't authorize to have that data would not have it.

The harm is based on why I want to control distribution. Some data I share, like financial and medical, is only for use by certain people, and use by other people could directly harm me.

The right to control distribution of data isn't about whether there is some potentially harmful repercussion should it fall into the hands of some particular person.

Disney has no objections to me, or anybody else, seeing their latest movie; all they want, really, is that they get paid for it.

So it's ok to take their right to control distribution of their data but it's not ok to take your right to control distribution of your data. What the data is is not relevant, the intent does not affect the right to control distribution of it. If you distribute modified GPL code in binary form that does no harm either but the copyright owner retains the right to control how that software is distributed and that must be respected, it isn't just a free-for-all where anybody can redistribute anything to anybody however they want.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

the idea that you "dont have control" if you use proprietary software in contrast to free software is nonsense, you run binaries on your system and even when you have the source code you do not understand them in their entirety so you relinquish control to those programs that you yourself do not understand.

If you cannot see the source code, then you do not have control. Even if you don't understand the source code fully, it still gives you more options than binary blobs.

wrong again. i did not say or imply anything of the sort. i am saying that if you were to escape proprietary software then the logical place to start is not in a place where you can quarantine it and control it by doing obvious things such as useing jails and virtual machines or in this case its use is so trivial that you dont need it at all. the obvious place to start is where it has a genuine impact where a fault can cause you harm and you cannot simply eliminate that risk with a form of sandbox.

Using a virtual machine only does so much. You still do not have access to the source code, and are still restricted.

and i am sure you will claim you never go in planes, trains, trams or taxis and that you probably dont use banks either. those are the cases where eliminating proprietary software actually *is* important but instead the focus is on non-essential areas in which an environment can easily be crafted to control and eliminate any risk anyway.

In that case, it's a mere false dichotomy. Both problems can be tackled, and should be.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

Read what I wrote, I never said piracy was theft. I didn't disagree with your statement that piracy is not theft at all.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

If you find that unacceptable that's fine, that doesn't make everybody else ignorant.

People who agree in principle with the TSA or NSA surveillance are ignorant. People who think DUI checkpoints are good are ignorant. People who think draconian copyright laws are good are ignorant. People who don't understand the value of freedom in general are ignorant.

And because most people don't want to that makes them ignorant?

No, but the fact that they use things which does not give one the freedom to does.

Not really relevant when I'm just watching TV or using Netflix in a disposable VM, it is a black box so I treat it accordingly.

The other issues remain.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

if you cannot understand the source code, then you do not have control.

But you can hire someone else who does understand the code, or learn to understand it to the best of your ability.

You think it has to be perfect? It doesn't. The point is, having the source code provides more opportunities for giving yourself control than not having it at all.

if that bothers you then you do not use it

I don't. That doesn't stop other people from being restricted. It's a matter of education.

but one is of incredible importance and the other is completely unessential and unnecessary

So you say. I believe believe both are of importance, for reasons already mentioned.

you cant get rid of all proprietary software

You can try.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

People who agree in principle with the TSA or NSA surveillance are ignorant. People who think DUI checkpoints are good are ignorant. People who think draconian copyright laws are good are ignorant. People who don't understand the value of freedom in general are ignorant.

Yeah OK clearly your definition of ignorant is "anybody who doesn't agree with me". The fact is you put up with all of those things, so ultimately you pontificate about freedom but you're just a government boot-licker, you can act all enlightened but in the end you knuckle under anyway so whether or not you perceive others as "ignorant" (by your definition) makes no practical difference.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Yeah OK clearly your definition of ignorant is "anybody who doesn't agree with me".

My definition of ignorant is the same as the common definition. Anyone who doesn't understand that governments and corporations have abused their powers many millions of times throughout history is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand that they are being restricted by DRM and proprietary software is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't know what freedoms they're giving up is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand what importance freedom has is also ignorant.

The fact is you put up with all of those things

I do? That's news to me. I don't get on planes, am completely uncooperative with authority figures, and use encryption as often as is humanely possible.

I also participate in protests, write to my 'representatives', attempt to convince others to join me, and vote accordingly. There's only so much one person can do.

So how am I a "government boot-licker," and how do I "put up with all of those things"?

you can act all enlightened but in the end you knuckle under anyway so whether or not you perceive others as "ignorant" (by your definition) makes no practical difference.

Whereas you seem content mocking anyone who gives a shit about freedom.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

My definition of ignorant is the same as the common definition. Anyone who doesn't understand that governments and corporations have abused their powers many millions of times throughout history is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand that they are being restricted by DRM and proprietary software is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't know what freedoms they're giving up is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand what importance freedom has is also ignorant.

There is a difference between acceptable sacrifices of particular elements of freedom for particular times and giving up any and all freedoms indefinitely.

I do? That's news to me. I don't get on planes, am completely uncooperative with authority figures, and use encryption as often as is humanely possible.

Yes, you allow them to restrict your movement because you see no ability to give up a particular freedom at a particular time for a specific amount of time which is not the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely. You have obviously never been to war torn countries and seen what happens when there are no laws, everybody has the freedom to do whatever they want and it is a damn scary place to visit, at least I knew I could escape it. It would work fine if everybody was civil and respectful toward one another but in the real world that does not happen.

Whereas you seem content mocking anyone who gives a shit about freedom.

No I'm not mocking anybody, I'm pointing out that your labeling of everybody who doesn't feel the same as you about all forms of freedom as ignorant is itself ignorant. Your opinion is merely a point of view, not a fact. Whilst I agree with your point of view in principle and apply that to a certain degree in particular areas I don't disparage others for not taking an interest in it or not applying it in areas in which it does not affect them.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

There is a difference between acceptable sacrifices of particular elements of freedom for particular times and giving up any and all freedoms indefinitely.

The freedoms I mentioned are freedoms I do not believe should be given up.

Yes, you allow them to restrict your movement because you see no ability to give up a particular freedom at a particular time for a specific amount of time which is not the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely.

Which has nothing to do with putting up with them or being a government boot-licker, since I'm doing about all any one person can do to stop them.

And it may not be the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely, but what the TSA et al. do is blatantly unconstitutional, and they infringe upon our fundamental liberties. That is intolerable, even if it is temporary.

You have obviously never been to war torn countries and seen what happens when there are no laws

Straw man. No one is suggesting that there be no laws. Either that or you're using the old "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" logic. Which, if any, is it?

And you seem to be defending the TSA et al. I hope this is not the case and this is a mere misunderstanding on my part.

No I'm not mocking anybody, I'm pointing out that your labeling of everybody who doesn't feel the same as you about all forms of freedom as ignorant is itself ignorant.

I don't think it's ignorant at all. People are often ignorant about what they're giving up and why it isn't a good idea; that's just a fact.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

The freedoms I mentioned are freedoms I do not believe should be given up.

And some people disagree, that does not make them ignorant.

Which has nothing to do with putting up with them or being a government boot-licker, since I'm doing about all any one person can do to stop them.

But in doing so you let them restrict you, either you do it their way or you don't do it all, both of which are their target outcomes.

Straw man. No one is suggesting that there be no laws. Either that or you're using the old "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" logic. Which, if any, is it?

No it isn't a straw man, you specifically indicated being uncooperative with law enforcement which is what happened there and the result is a myriad of people uncooperative with law enforcement to the point at which laws are no longer enforced.

And you seem to be defending the TSA et al. I hope this is not the case and this is a mere misunderstanding on my part.

No I am not.

I don't think it's ignorant at all. People are often ignorant about what they're giving up and why it isn't a good idea; that's just a fact.

And many people are willing to give up some liberties for some time in some specific case knowing full well the implications of doing so, that doesn't make them ignorant.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

But in doing so you let them restrict you

And how, exactly, does that make me a government boot-licker? Since I'm actively opposing them, that cannot be.

I never claimed to not be harmed by the actions of these thugs, but being harmed by the government doesn't make one a government boot-licker, or whatever else you're saying.

No it isn't a straw man, you specifically indicated being uncooperative with law enforcement which is what happened there and the result is a myriad of people uncooperative with law enforcement to the point at which laws are no longer enforced.

What a bunch of nonsense. I said that in a very specific context to indicate that I oppose the TSA, DUI checkpoints, and other such things.

As long as law enforcement acts like a bunch of corrupt thugs, and we have a bunch of unjust laws on the books, being cooperative with them is just foolish. But even that would not render us lawless.

And many people are willing to give up some liberties for some time in some specific case knowing full well the implications of doing so, that doesn't make them ignorant.

It makes them ignorant of the value of liberties.

And when you say "many," you really mean "a vast minority" Most people don't understand at least one of the following: DRM, individual liberties, or the dangers of proprietary software.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[dave420]

Unless you think having to show your ticket at the cinema or airport is treating you "like some sort of a criminal" you are being a hypocrite. They're the exact same thing - if you have your ticket, you get what you came for. If your system supports the DRM, you get the content. It's that simple. DRM just ensures that you have more content available, as the choice for the content providers is either "no DRM and no content" or "DRM and content". You are using a lot of angry words to describe something you don't seem to fully understand. The parent post seems to be correct - you are getting angry at the exact wrong thing, and you don't even realise it.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Unless you think having to show your ticket at the cinema or airport is treating you "like some sort of a criminal" you are being a hypocrite.

You seem to be defending digital restrictions management, which is essentially malware that restricts the user's computing and assumes that the user is an enemy.

The difference between airplane/cinema tickets and DRM is obviously that you do not own the airplane or the cinema, whereas you do own your computer. And treating the computer owner as an enemy by default and often placing malicious restrictions upon them is disgusting.

It's that simple. DRM just ensures that you have more content available

No, it doesn't. I don't use anything with DRM, so it does no such thing for *me*.

as the choice for the content providers is either "no DRM and no content" or "DRM and content".

False dichotomy. Plenty of companies release their games without DRM, even now. DRM just provides an illusion of safety in almost all cases.

But even if it didn't, that still wouldn't make it okay.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[Indigo]

Thanks for that link. It was quite informative after a little additional Googling.

So, Mozilla's CTO / VP for Mobile says that the reason they're implementing DRM in Firefox is that the W3C has enshrined it in a standard, Google and Microsoft are already shipping it, and "not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM" like Netflix, Amazon Video, and Hulu.

In completely unrelated news, Mozilla's business partner Telefonica (TEF) of Spain, which makes FirefoxOS cell phones and either owns or partners with Brazil's iMusica DRM / content streaming business, requested that Open Mobile Alliance Forward Lock DRM be included in FirefoxOS, because their users can't download OMA DRM Forward Lock-protected ringtones, music, and wallpapers without it. The implementation for this is basically in approvals now.

Some people might find this relevant to the discussion. Now, this is evidently both a different technology (OMA DRM Forward Link vs W3C EME) and a different product (FirefoxOS vs Firefox Web browser). But it's the same company (Mozilla), and a group that has no issues with adding DRM to one product may have fewer issues about adding it to another.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[gnasher719]

Remember, DRM doesn't just stop 'piracy', it stops fair use of copyright content too.

When was the last time that you wanted to do something that would be considered "fair use" under copyright law?

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[gnasher719]

That's a contradiction in terms, right there. DRM is friendly if it does something *for* me. I'll agree that there's more and less cumbersome DRM implementations, but the argument that less-cumbersome DRM is in *any* way friendlier than no DRM at all obviously falls flat on its face.

There's one situation where DRM is good for you, and that is video rental. If I have a choice to buy a movie for $12 or to rent it for $4, and I most definitely only want to watch it once, then the ability to rent saves me $8. And renting wouldn't be possible without DRM.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[gnasher719]

Problem is that it also complicates usage. The music industry eventually gave up - I suspect a similar outcome with the film industry, but it'll be a long, devastating fight.

Unfortunately not true for audio books, for example Amazon-owned audible.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

And how, exactly, does that make me a government boot-licker? Since I'm actively opposing them, that cannot be.

You let them dictate what you do.

What a bunch of nonsense. I said that in a very specific context to indicate that I oppose the TSA, DUI checkpoints, and other such things.

As long as law enforcement acts like a bunch of corrupt thugs, and we have a bunch of unjust laws on the books, being cooperative with them is just foolish. But even that would not render us lawless.

You specifically said you were uncooperative with law enforcement and 'acting like corrupt thugs' is just a point of view. Whilst I do agree with your assessment I can accept that it is not an objective assessment.

It makes them ignorant of the value of liberties.

And when you say "many," you really mean "a vast minority" Most people don't understand at least one of the following: DRM, individual liberties, or the dangers of proprietary software.

That's because most of the "dangers" of proprietary software do not have any real impact aside from the ad absurdum extrapolations of conspiracy theorists. Like I said if I watch Netflix on an AppleTV that is a whole bunch of proprietary software and DRM but what are you suggesting is "dangerous" about that? Specifically, not perceived, not some extrapolated theory, the real, specific here-and-now danger?

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

You let them dictate what you do.

What a strange definition of "government boot-licker." Here I thought it referred to those who practically worship the government and believe whatever it says. But no, it's anyone who is at all affected by the government's corruption; everyone.

You specifically said you were uncooperative with law enforcement and 'acting like corrupt thugs' is just a point of view.

In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a point of view. With all the shit that they do, this is just a fact.

That's because most of the "dangers" of proprietary software do not have any real impact aside from the ad absurdum extrapolations of conspiracy theorists.

Backdoors or bugs that make one insecure that you have practically zero chance of catching and fixing do not have real impact? Being practically unable to get updates from anywhere other than the original developer (With FOSS, it can just be forked of the original developer screws up.) has no real impact? Not having any real control has no impact? Free software is not a be-all-end-all fix for everything, but letting people have the possibility to truly understand and control what the software is doing is an important step forward. The whole NSA affair shows this, as you're left even more vulnerable when an entity as large as the government is working with tons of corporations. Don't take this to mean that free software is immune from all of this, because again, it's not.

And I view lack of control as a very real impact in and of itself.

Like I said if I watch Netflix on an AppleTV that is a whole bunch of proprietary software and DRM but what are you suggesting is "dangerous" about that? Specifically, not perceived, not some extrapolated theory, the real, specific here-and-now danger?

If specific here-and-now danger is all you're worried about, then no wonder the government and corporations do as they please. People like you are easy to fool.

You also seem hell-bent on the idea that all DRM is equally dangerous. This is not my claim. My claim is that DRM can do any number of harmful things (restricting you, making you insecure, etc.), but not necessarily all at once. All DRM is harmful in at least one way.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

What a strange definition of "government boot-licker." Here I thought it referred to those who practically worship the government and believe whatever it says. But no, it's anyone who is at all affected by the government's corruption; everyone.

No it's that you let them dictate what you do and do not do, they can control you simply by putting in place a requirement that you won't comply with, you are just as easily manipulated as those who do comply with the requirement.

In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a point of view. With all the shit that they do, this is just a fact.

Wrong, only a religious zealot presents his subjective point of view as fact.

Backdoors or bugs that make one insecure that you have practically zero chance of catching and fixing do not have real impact?

They potentially could exist and if they did exist they could potentially have a real impact, but fear-mongering is your only argument.

Being practically unable to get updates from anywhere other than the original developer (With FOSS, it can just be forked of the original developer screws up.) has no real impact?

Again it potentially could and sometimes does but in many cases it does not.

Not having any real control has no impact?

Once again it potentially could but as I demonstrated with the AppleTV example and the Netflix in a VM example it can have none whatsoever. How do you expect to convince people that something is bad if you can't even identify any specific real impact?

Free software is not a be-all-end-all fix for everything, but letting people have the possibility to truly understand and control what the software is doing is an important step forward.

And for the people who want that option it is there, that's the great thing about choice. You just can't accept that people don't have the devotion to the religious ideals that you have.

If specific here-and-now danger is all you're worried about, then no wonder the government and corporations do as they please. People like you are easy to fool.

No, it's not "all I'm worried about", I never said anything of the sort. It's just the specific question I asked but you are deflecting because you know you cannot answer it. Try again. I made it as clear as possible for you to be specific, I even bolded it but you still failed, so ask yourself why did you fail? Can you answer that? I doubt it.

Your problem is your inability to make your argument in an objective manner, you can state your point of view all you want and attempt to bully people who think differently by calling them "ignorant" but that you need to resort to that means are unable to educate people on the virtues of your ideals - either because they are not relevant or because they have to real impact - and that is your failure.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

No it's that you let them dictate what you do and do not do, they can control you simply by putting in place a requirement that you won't comply with, you are just as easily manipulated as those who do comply with the requirement.

That still does not make someone a government boot-licker. You accuse me of stating my subjective views as a fact, yet here you are doing just that.

And what do you suggest I do as a form of protest? Go with the flow, and just accept it? If so, that's absolutely absurd. You seem to be suggesting that absolutely nothing should be done, because if anything is done, it's a sign that you're a government boot-licker, which, to you, is anyone who does anything in response to the government's actions, since doing something means they're controlling you.

Wrong, only a religious zealot presents his subjective point of view as fact.

Either you're a religious zealot who states his opinions as facts, or you're not and you don't. Nice false dichotomy.

And you seem to be presenting plenty of subjective viewpoints as facts.

They potentially could exist and if they did exist they could potentially have a real impact, but fear-mongering is your only argument.

With the whole NSA debacle, Sony rootkits, and the countless times that corporations and governments have taken advantage of their powers (Are you seriously going to make me list every act of corruption?), you'd be ignorant to think it's just fear-mongering. In fact, you are profoundly ignorant.

Again it potentially could and sometimes does but in many cases it does not.

No, it does have a real impact, because it restricts your options. That is just a fact, regardless of whether you decide to take advantage of them.

How do you expect to convince people that something is bad if you can't even identify any specific real impact?

How do you expect to not live in a police state if you don't take into account how certain government powers might be abused, even if they haven't been?

And I already did. The NSA is a great example.

You just can't accept that people don't have the devotion to the religious ideals that you have.

You seem to have your own devotion to religious ideals, and they come in the form of opposing me and accusing me of having religious ideals. That can easily be turned back upon you, insect.

It's just the specific question I asked but you are deflecting because you know you cannot answer it.

I already did answer it.

But with that said, you're merely opposing me so fervently because you know I'm right, and you just don't want to admit it. Wow, telling others what they think deep down in their heart of hearts sure is hard!

Your problem is your inability to make your argument in an objective manner

Funny... I'd say that's your problem.

you can state your point of view all you want and attempt to bully people who think differently by calling them "ignorant"

I 'bully' people that way because it's The Truth. You know this as well as I do, and that's why you feel the need to use much-abused terms like "deflecting," "religious zealot," "religious ideals," and "bully."

but that you need to resort to that means are unable to educate people on the virtues of your ideals

That you need to resort to saying that means you know that you're 100% incorrect.

either because they are not relevant or because they have to real impact - and that is your failure.

To be honest, you're not doing a very good job of arguing against me. I know this because I decided it myself, so it's true.

And again, you say you're not obsessed with the here-and-now, but it seems all you think about is the present, and neve

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

That still does not make someone a government boot-licker. You accuse me of stating my subjective views as a fact, yet here you are doing just that.

Wrong, they give you 2 options, you do one of them instead of taking action to ensure the creation of a 3rd. Rosa Parks did not simply "not ride the bus".

Either you're a religious zealot who states his opinions as facts, or you're not and you don't. Nice false dichotomy.

Wrong again, subjective opinions are not fact, that is a fact.

With the whole NSA debacle, Sony rootkits, and the countless times that corporations and governments have taken advantage of their powers (Are you seriously going to make me list every act of corruption?), you'd be ignorant to think it's just fear-mongering. In fact, you are profoundly ignorant.

I never said they don't exist, I said they potentially could exist but you insist on impugning the entire market out of your fear of a few bad apples, terrorism works on you.

No, it does have a real impact, because it restricts your options. That is just a fact, regardless of whether you decide to take advantage of them.

If you don't exercise the options then it has no impact...seriously how daft are you to not realize that? Explain how it can have an impact if you don't exercise that option.

You seem to have your own devotion to religious ideals, and they come in the form of opposing me and accusing me of having religious ideals. That can easily be turned back upon you, insect.

Wrong, you are free to feel however you like, but you insist on imposing those on others. You don't want them to have choice, if you were ok with choice you would have no problem with DRM in firefox, but you don't want people to have that choice because you want to push your religious ideals on others.

I already did answer it.

Wrong again, I clearly said be specific, you failed, try again.

Funny... I'd say that's your problem.

You're the one trying to eliminate choice, and you're the one losing so it's your problem.

I 'bully' people that way because it's The Truth.

It's merely your point of view.

And again, you say you're not obsessed with the here-and-now, but it seems all you think about is the present

No I'm trying to get an example of your opposition to the specific scenario I laid out, which you failed time and time again to do, and you will fail again.

and never think about possible future dangers that have been adequately pointed out.

No i quite clearly said the extrapolated potential future dangers is what you use to make your argument.

But enough of your idiocy, explain this one thing and if you can do that then perhaps you can convince me. All you have to do is make your point in the specific context I've laid out for you if not you can admit that DRM is not bad in all situations, so here goes:

Assuming I'm watching Netflix on AppleTV or in a disposable virtual machine what is the real specific danger I face?

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Wrong, they give you 2 options, you do one of them instead of taking action to ensure the creation of a 3rd. Rosa Parks did not simply "not ride the bus".

I already listed numerous things that I do in my attempt to stop it. So again, how does the term "government boot-licker" apply to me? Your use of the term is so general and useless that it applies to anyone who uses a strategy that you don't like, not to mention the fact that it's completely different from the normal use of the term.

Wrong again, subjective opinions are not fact, that is a fact.

Look at the text you quoted again. I did not say that subjective opinions are fact.

I never said they don't exist, I said they potentially could exist but you insist on impugning the entire market out of your fear of a few bad apples, terrorism works on you.

It's far from a few bad apples; history is absolutely full of abuses of power.

If you don't exercise the options then it has no impact...seriously how daft are you to not realize that? Explain how it can have an impact if you don't exercise that option.

It seems you are stuck thinking that the only impacts are physical and personal. I do not think that way. Even though I never ride on planes and never did even before the TSA came around, I think the government thugs in the airports are impacting my freedoms.

Wrong, you are free to feel however you like, but you insist on imposing those on others.

If voicing your opinion is the same as imposing on others, then I'm 100% fine with imposing on others. And you seem to have no problem with it, either.

You don't want them to have choice, if you were ok with choice you would have no problem with DRM in firefox, but you don't want people to have that choice because you want to push your religious ideals on others.

You're seemingly pushing for your own "religious ideals," and they're that Firefox should absolutely allow people the choice to use DRM.

Wrong again, I clearly said be specific, you failed, try again.

Nope. I answered.

You're the one trying to eliminate choice, and you're the one losing so it's your problem.

You don't understand something. You're also eliminating my choice by implementing DRM in Firefox, because I refuse to use anything that supports 'features' like this that are specifically implemented for the purposes of DRM.

If you really wanted "choice," just use a different browser. It's about as valid as attacking me for supposedly taking away your choices, and it's just as self-imposed.

As for "losing," (Whatever that means in this context...) do you honestly think the person you're arguing with is going to agree with that? How pointless.

It's merely your point of view.

That's merely your point of view. That's a fact.

No I'm trying to get an example of your opposition to the specific scenario I laid out, which you failed time and time again to do, and you will fail again.

I will "fail" again because you're only looking for very specific answers. To me, lack of choice in computing is dangerous and harmful in and of itself. To you, that does not seem to be the case. But it is to me. Because of that, there's nothing I can say to convince you, unless I could somehow find an event that happened in the real world that demonstrates the dangers of proprietary software and DRM in the very specific situation that you laid out, which likely wouldn't happen. Since I can't be theoretical, all I could ever do is provide links to past events that satisfy your specific conditions.

if not you can admit that DRM is not bad in all situations, so here goes:

I feel DRM is always bad. I doubt you actively want DRM; just the content. I thought this was all about forsaking those ideals when it's convenient enough, not whether DRM is always bad.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

I will "fail" again because you're only looking for very specific answers. To me, lack of choice in computing is dangerous and harmful in and of itself. To you, that does not seem to be the case.

No I'm not saying it's not dangerous and harmful, I'm only saying it can be and there are also situations in where it is not and in those places where I can simply treat it as a black box and confine it then it is not dangerous and harmful at all.

I thought this was all about forsaking those ideals when it's convenient enough, not whether DRM is always bad.

No, only when it is not harmful and dangerous - despite what you may preach those situations do exist, as I have pointed out.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

You're also eliminating my choice by implementing DRM in Firefox, because I refuse to use anything that supports 'features' like this that are specifically implemented for the purposes of DRM.

Then don't support it. You don't have any right to dictate their decisions.

If you really wanted "choice," just use a different browser.

I don't need to, I can use Firefox :P

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

No I'm not saying it's not dangerous and harmful, I'm only saying it can be and there are also situations in where it is not and in those places where I can simply treat it as a black box and confine it then it is not dangerous and harmful at all.

I'm saying that the mere concept of DRM and proprietary software is, to me, harmful and dangerous to my freedoms. I'm not talking about 'practical' dangers or anything of the sort.

Then don't support it. You don't have any right to dictate their decisions.

I won't. And neither do you, so why do you insist I'm taking away choice, when really, no matter what happens, someone is taking away some choice from someone? I just don't understand the point.

Besides, I may not have the right to dictate their decisions, but I never claimed to have such a right. People are merely criticizing them for doing things that they don't like, and that's well within people's rights. Mozilla can ignore this if they feel like it, and they probably will.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[exomondo]

I won't. And neither do you, so why do you insist I'm taking away choice, when really, no matter what happens, someone is taking away some choice from someone? I just don't understand the point.

You want them to remove the option for a user to choose DRM or not, you want to take away people's freedom of choice and thankfully they will not allow that sort of bigotry. I have the right to not exercise a particular, specific freedom (one that I did not previously have) in a specific context for a specific time and you can not deny me that freedom - as much as you want to.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Choosing not to implement something is also valid. You also have the right to choose a different browser, and so do I. Many people who refuse to use DRM or even support it will have to use another browser now, decreasing their number of choices.

And since we have the source, there are plenty of options. Still sad to see a major browser go this route.

Re: Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[khellendros1984]

And renting wouldn't be possible without DRM.

That's a silly claim. Replace "possible" with "profitable", and you've got a better argument (but still one that I'd disagree with). DRM will keep an honest person honest, but they're not the ones an IP holder has to worry about anyhow. Someone dishonest will still find a way around the DRM (with the aid of the tiny, clever percentage of the population that can invent ways to circumvent it).

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[hobarrera]

Yeah, or just run a fake X-Server which actually saves the content to a file, instead of displaying it. The options are endless.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[hobarrera]

Or latinamerica. Or asia. My guess is that over 50% of the world actually pirates their stuff.

Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable?

[hobarrera]

The average person does not do this sort of pirating. The average person heads over to thepiratebay.org and downloads the file that somebody else got by cracking the DRM implementation.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

THIS is a good reason to oust a Mozilla CEO.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Mateo_LeFou]

This, or inventing javascript. Ick.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[bi$hop]

THIS is a good reason to oust a Mozilla CEO.

Amen. For the first time in my life I actually wish I had mod points so I could mod this up.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[marcello_dl]

Exactly, this is a bad move no matter what. Because FF should have let third parties write a plugin and waited until it was inevitable before including it, if ever. With this move they threw their weight IN SUPPORT of it, from a practical point of view. Because now people will say: see this scheme is supported by all major vendors, let's go for it.

That it's a w3c standard, it is not relevant. In fact "we implement only the sane things out of w3c" would have been a marketing bullet point. No, not now: when remote wipings of DRM protected stuff start happening.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[NotDrWho]

90% of Mozilla's income comes from Google.
Google owns YouTube.
YouTube uses this DRM.

'nuff said

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily, YouTube DOES NOT use this DRM. Thus, the majority of video on the Web does not currently need DRM. And yet Mozilla made this stupid decision....

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[BZ]

1) A third party is writing the plugin.
2) We did wait until it was inevitable. Every single other browser is already shipping it, Netflix is using it, and other sites are starting to use it. The only alternative to shipping this was to make sure Netflix and other video sites continued to work with Flash or Silverlight _and_ that Flash and Silverlight continue to work indefinitely.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[NotDrWho]

YouTube uses this for a lot of their 1080 HD content. Most people don't notice it because it will throttle you down to 720 if your browser doesn't support it.

Re:Not relevant

[interkin3tic]

Given the recent update, I suspect the answer will be the same for both.

(I feel like this joke is nerdy even by slashdot standards.)

Where's the progressive outrage machine when we ne

[Lord Kano]

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

LK

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[jnelson4765]

You can either have open source or DRM - anything where the end user has control of the software can be broken, period. Trying to keep people from messing with your DRM is a losing battle, anyway - there are always more bored hackers that will break whatever scheme you come up with.

Beyond that, why would you bother with a browser-specific technology? It's yet another thing that looks shiny in the 'features' column but no one will ever use, because the market share is too low to justify it. Oh, and Microsoft and Apple will implement it differently, and Google won't bother. So, pissing off open source folks to implement a 'feature' that nobody will actually use?

Meh.

Re:Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[jader3rd]

Beyond that, why would you bother with a browser-specific technology?

Given that not all browsers are able to implement the same set of features, nearly every feature is browser-specific.

Re:What a joyous success

[mwvdlee]

Current number of websites using EME is 0.

Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share!

[Arker]

PaleMoon is a Firefox fork that appears to be doing very well. I dont know for sure, but I suspect they will correctly sort this into the unwanted features bucket and skip it.

Personal DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need to do is figure out how to apply DRM to the personal information emanating from our machines. You will then be able to lawfully defend against those who profit from that information. Of course you could work out an arrangement to get a slice of the gross coinage as well ;).

Re:Personal DRM

[ewieling]

Wrap your personal information inside some form of DRM and require acceptance of your EULA before opening it. Sort of a "technical jujitsu", take your opponents strengths and use it against them.

I wish I could do that to the DMV. Within a week of registering my car in FL I started receiving postal junk mail at my new address. I'd love to get involved in a class action lawsuit against them.

Re:Personal DRM

[LordLimecat]

Its called "dont go to a website if you dont like their terms; dont provide them info if you dont want it used."

Re:Personal DRM

[ArcadeMan]

President Skroob: That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

Re:What a fscking disaster

[ArcadeMan]

Current number of websites using MEME is over 9000.

FFFFFFUUUUU

[GameboyRMH]

As I said before, this is an ideological loss for no practical gain. Now that we've lost, let's release browser plugins to break the shit out of EME, forcing DRM back into shitty proprietary browser extensions that have to be installed one user at a time!

Ayn Rand Quote Time

[bmajik]

Oh look. Here's a whole _page_ of Ayn Rand quotes about compromise

In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit

or...

Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi...

Many folks have a go at the idea that they can somehow tame evil or compromise with it without being tainted too much. I'm not sure this has ever really worked out.

There is a lot to like about the Richard Stallmans of the world. They are clear about the what and the why, and they stick to their guns.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[jeffmflanagan]

You don't think quoting a crank is insightful or useful in any way, do you?

Seriously, why would you want to quote someone as foolish and hypocritical as Ayn Rand?

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[chefmonkey]

There is a lot to like about the Richard Stallmans of the world. They are clear about the what and the why, and they stick to their guns.

And that's why Gnu Hurd is a viable desktop alternative to Windows and OS X, and is so influential in what happens in operating systems at large.

Without the snark: if you have no measurable market share, you don't have any measurable market influence. If people can watch Netflix on Chrome, IE, and Safari, but not on Firefox, what do you think happens? How much impact can Mozilla have if Firefox becomes the Gnu Hurd of the browser world?

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think quoting a crank is insightful or useful in any way, do you?

 

No, but I just did so anyway.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[bmajik]

The Hurd isn't a viable alternative because it isn't needed.

Stallman had a vision of a completely free as in speech computer system. When he started, that meant, OS, tools, and application software.

It was a radical strawman against the beginnings of an industry of for-profit software with intellectual property laws.

It turns out that Stallman and his friends created the programmable editor, the compiler suite, the tool chain, the user-space unix tooling..

and them some Finnish guy and his friends came along and made the OS kernel.

The point is that now, not only is there a free OS and development tool chain -- more successful than Stallman could have ever managed -- there is an entire philosophy around free-as-in-speech software.

Stallman has been more influential on how we think about an use computer software than arguably just about anyone. I would at least put him in the same room as a Woz or a Bill Gates.

The market share of Hurd is the wrong metric. The fact that my company -- Microsoft -- is releasing more and more of our stuff as free-as-in-speech software -- that's the metric.

Let's objectively look at what Stallman started.

Let's use this metric: how many Fortune 100 companies have capitulated to _your_ philosophical demands?

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[bmajik]

Obviously, because I think she's neither foolish nor hypocritical.

There's a class of people who respond to Ayn Rand with ad hominem. Which is funny -- She wrote a lot of pages -- more than I care to read in one sitting. In all that, somewhere, you'd think there's be fertile soil for a response more intellectually stimulating than, "she's a crank".

Fault her for whatever reasons you've faulted her, but to me, nobody has more constancy and conviction in their writing in favor of doing the right things for the right reasons. The importance of principle is central to everything she ever wrote.

The Mozilla conversation is about principle vs. pragmatism, and I think her quotes on the topic are highly relevant.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[chefmonkey]

That's utter revisionist claptrap.

Stallman's uncompromising stance is pretty evident in the GPL, which is a relatively minor player when compared against more permissive licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, and -- relevant to the conversation at hand -- MPL). These licenses, by allowing in the "little bit of evil" that is represented by allowing their use in commercial contexts, have been significantly more successful than GPL and similar viral attempts.

You can try to hold him out as a cheerleader in this arena, but in terms of "meeting his philosophical demands," how much of the stuff that Microsoft has released is under viral licenses like GPL?

RMS lost this battle, and it's completely because he won't take compromise of any kind. If the only two options were "closed source or GPL," then the open source movement would have died decades ago. The more compromising stance of organizations of MIT, Berkeley, Apache, and Mozilla -- and the myriad software projects that followed their lead -- is what changed the landscape.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[BitZtream]

you'd think there's be fertile soil for a response more intellectually stimulating than, "she's a crank".

You'd think that people who think she's neither foolish nor hypocritical would realize how wrong they are when they realize that in all that writing ... the only response needed is 'she's a crank'.

Though I prefer the word quack to describe her and what she spewed.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[LordLimecat]

Hearing Ayn Rand-- the figurehead of a school of thought that endorses such things as infanticide and genocide if they could be truly shown to be in one's true self interest-- talk about "good" and "evil" is a bit rich.

Heres a tip, if you find a good quote of hers that is relevant to a discussion, leave off the "Ayn Rand said" bit, it will get you a lot more credibility.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[Microlith]

These licenses, by allowing in the "little bit of evil" that is represented by allowing their use in commercial proprietary contexts

Fixed that. Now this sentence is true.

The more compromising stance of organizations of MIT, Berkeley, Apache, and Mozilla -- and the myriad software projects that followed their lead -- is what changed the landscape.

Unfortunately you can't really assert that any of what you said is true. There are GPL projects that are equally, if not more, successful than equivalent projects under those licenses.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[LordLimecat]

All of the explainations for why "shes a crank" are out there for the world to see. For starters, a school of thought which teaches that "self interest" can somehow be equated with "ethics" should raise some eyebrows right off the bat.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[LordLimecat]

GNU Hurd isnt viable because it never got off the ground.

Stallman had a vision of a completely free as in speech computer system. When he started, that meant, OS, tools,

I believe Linux Torvalds provided the OS, lets not get that mixed up. Stallman provided the tools.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[chefmonkey]

Unfortunately you can't really assert that any of what you said is true. There are GPL projects that are equally, if not more, successful than equivalent projects under those licenses.

If his metric is "look what Microsoft has done," or even "look what several Fortune 100 companies have done" -- and that is, in fact, the metric he selected -- then I'm pretty confident I can.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[CRCulver]

Which is funny -- She wrote a lot of pages -- more than I care to read in one sitting. In all that, somewhere, you'd think there's be fertile soil for a response more intellectually stimulating than, "she's a crank".

You might have a look at Atlas Sucked, which has become my go-to rebuttal for at least that particular novel. It is such an in-depth critique of Rand's odd ideas about running a business that I just ask people to read that instead of posting e.g. the old joke about Tolkien and Rand.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan walk into a bar.
The bartender serves them tainted alcohol because there are no regulations.
They die.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[amorsen]

I believe Linux Torvalds provided the OS, lets not get that mixed up. Stallman provided the tools.

An OS is more than just the kernel. Run Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and you will hardly notice that anything changed from normal Debian.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[david_thornley]

My first exposure was the book "The Virtue of Selfishness", specifically the first item, which was a lecture from Ayn Rand to philosophy students.

Rand made sweeping statements on the history of philosophy, with about as much accuracy as the typical Slashdot comment on Christianity. She strongly advocated (without any fundamental reason I could find) a philosophy that, by my analysis, would destroy society in a generation if enough people followed it. I never had the stomach to read further into the book.

This was presumably Rand taking her best shot at explaining herself. That's why I can't take her thinking seriously.

Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time

[david_thornley]

I fail to understand this. My main home box runs a GPLv2 kernel (oddly enough the most popular out there, and very prominent in end-user computing) and a lot of essential software that's GPLed (much less prominent in end-user computing). Many of my important development tools there are GPLed.

In what way did Stallman lose?

Not One Step Back

[Rhymoid]

Of course, it's useful to cooperate and work on standards, but when you put that above your own principles -- in the case of Mozilla, that should be "an open and accessible internet" -- you're essentially dead.

If W3C institutes a bad standard, you don't have to follow them. Instead, Mozilla should've told them that they're not following suit, or even that this is the last drop and W3C can go fuck itself, and find a more creative solution to the problem of financing the internet's infrastructure.

I don't like DRM either

[rujasu]

But this is an open-source browser we're talking about. If we don't want DRM, we can make a build of it without the DRM piece.

Companies will use DRM schemes whether they're supported by browsers or not. I don't entirely agree with Firefox deciding to implement EME, but it doesn't actually matter all that much.

Re:I don't like DRM either

[chefmonkey]

But this is an open-source browser we're talking about. If we don't want DRM, we can make a build of it without the DRM piece.

Or, even better, when it asks you if you want to turn the DRM feature on, click "no." No compiler needed.

Re:I don't like DRM either

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is an open-source browser we're talking about. If we don't want DRM, we can make a build of it without the DRM piece.

Being open-source has nothing to do with this. The number of people who will use a fork is essentially zero when compared to Firefox's total userbase.

The problem is that Mozilla has thrown away the power that comes from being able to speak for hundreds of millions of users out of fear of losing some of those users. That's a path to irrelevancy, they've traded the vision that made them popular in the first place for the hope of maintaining marketshare. It is a total MBA move, as if Mozilla should be driven by profits instead of advocacy.

Re:I don't like DRM either

[EvolutionInAction]

To me it matters quite a bit!

I want to see the companies who's products I use take a stand. Yeah, the big players will just work around them. So what? Is that any reason not to fight?

Re:I don't like DRM either

[peppepz]

When a relevant portion of the Internet requires DRM, compiling out DRM support from your browser will only lock you out of the Internet. It's just like Flash. Sites will require it for the silliest reasons and people who can't run it won't be able to access them. Except that now it's worse, because unlike Flash, EME backends cannot be implemented on open source platforms and they will never be made obsolete by some standard technology as HTML5 did with Flash. Basically, Mozilla caved in to the pressure from Google and the other servants of Hollywood to split the web into two unreachable halves. So much for Mozilla's mission of "an open web".

Re:I don't like DRM either

[BanHammor]

Except it's streaming and not native playing - the media is already in a container and is irretrievable without specific hacks.

Re:I don't like DRM either

[westlake]

The problem is that Mozilla has thrown away the power that comes from being able to speak for hundreds of millions of users out of fear of losing some of those users.

Last December Disney posted the full animated performance of "Let It Go" by Idina Menzel for HD distribution through YouTube.

3.28 minutes. 226 million views.

All things "Frozen" on YouTube, best guess, conservatively, 500 million views.

You don't lose some of your users if you can't play protected media content, you lose damn near all of them.

It is a total MBA move, as if Mozilla should be driven by profits instead of advocacy.

Mozilla lives and dies by the add click. It's hard to be a successful advocate when you lie dead and buried.

Re:Not relevant

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Drop the browser. It's no longer a question if web standards are fucked, and that your arse is what's offered for the fucking.

Gopher over TOR.

Open Source Browser

[Drethon]

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

Making bug reporting illegal?!

[Anonymous Coward]

From Cory Doctorow's article today...

...the Adobe module is not only closed source, it is also protected by controversial global laws that threaten security researchers who publish information about its security flaws.

These laws â" the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the European EUCD, Canadaâ(TM)s C-11 and so on â" prohibit revealing information that can be used to weaken DRM, and previous security researchers who disclosed information about vulnerabilities in DRM have been threatened and prosecuted.

This created a chilling effect on the publication of vulnerabilities in DRM, even where these put users at risk from hackers. For example, when word got out that Sony BMG had infected millions of computers with an illegal rootkit to stop (legal) audio CD ripping, security researchers stepped forward to disclose that theyâ(TM)d known about the rootkit but had been afraid to say anything about it.

This gap between discovery and disclosure allowed the Sony rootkit to become a global pandemic that infected hundreds of thousands of US military and government networks. Virus writers used the Sony rootkit to cloak their own software and attack vulnerable systems.

The inclusion of Adobeâ(TM)s DRM in Firefox means that Mozilla will be putting millions of its users in a position where they are running code whose bugs are illegal to report.

Re:Pragmatic, makes sense.

[CaptSlaq]

So it's a method to run untrusted, potentially hostile code in a jail to minimize the harm it can do to the user and the host system. (In an open source setting you must assume all closed code is hostile)

Can they do this to other plugins too? Like flash?

All plugins that Firefox uses run in a separate container already. I do not know what the cost of jailing said container would be.

dumb

[Charliemopps]

Rather that deal with it in such a complex way, they should just do what linux did for years with MP3s. Popup box "This is an MP3, we can install the thing you need to listen to it, but it's not open source. Do you want it? Yes/No" Simple as that. Let users chose. I don't see how this is any different.

Then they can let their plugin community quietly subvert the entire mechanism, just like they have everything else, and the industry will abandon it.

Re:dumb

[king neckbeard]

First of all, the codecs were typically handled by patent-encumbered FOSS code. That's far less of a security risk, and isn't even a legal issue in much of the world. Secondly, the codecs, even if proprietary, generally didn't have any kind of DRM mechanism.

Re:dumb

[Charliemopps]

Oh cool. Then I have no problem with this at all. It's just the content industry screwing themselves out of a market yet again.

Re:dumb

[Rich0]

Then they can let their plugin community quietly subvert the entire mechanism, just like they have everything else, and the industry will abandon it.

Yup. Just stick a comment in the source code: "Under no circumstances is anybody to comment out the following #define. It is intended for testing only, and if commented out the entire DRM system will be bypassed, and you might be able to accidentally save DRM-protected streams to disk."

Finally no more plugins

[Anonymous Coward]

They left the best part of the article out: with the move to EME we finally can get away from those lousy insecure plugins from Adobe. All thanks to our new CDM from Adobe! ... Oh wait. n/m.

Re:Finally no more plugins

[BZ]

The difference is that the CDM will be sandboxed in a low-privilege process with no direct access to the OS and kernel, which is not at all how Flash works.

Re:IceWease

[kthreadd]

Not to mention GnuZilla.

Native Client

[tepples]

All plugins that Firefox uses run in a separate container already. I do not know what the cost of jailing said container would be.

Google created Native Client, which includes a statically verifiable subset of x86 instructions that a compiler can target, which makes a userspace jail straightforward to implement. Mozilla has no interest in implementing any of the Native Client stack. Instead, it wants people to compile C to JavaScript using Emscripten and then run that JavaScript in an optimizing virtual machine.

Re:Native Client

[tepples]

Native Client is intended to allow native code to be sandboxed in the same way that the code to which JavaScript compiles is sandboxed.

So this is what happens when Brendan Eich leaves

[RR]

Brendan Eich may have had some opinions that people don't like, but at least he stuck to his morals. Now that he's gone, the new CTO, this Andreas Gal, seems more likely to compromise. DRM is evil, but Dr. Gal thinks he's clever, and is trying to wrap it in an open-source sandbox. Let the exploits come.

Oh well, now I do have an actual reason to boycott Firefox.

Fine for me.

[Psicopatico]

Fine for me.

But relase this stuff as an extension.
An "Official Extension" written directly by Mozilla, properly advertised and recommended and all that, if you wish. But make an extension.

Then watch the % of users using it (and laugh, but that's IMHO).

Re:Fine for me.

[BanHammor]

They are basically making a sandbox for that thing, but without the proverbial sand. The CDM itself will be hosted at Adobe.

Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share!

[Arker]

Obviously you are correct. A UI which exposes control interfaces to the user is bad. The future is to expose control interfaces ONLY to remote ad agencies, and keep the dirty users in their place.

if browser mfgs. do this

[GregL.Huddleston]

if/when browser mfgs. do this -- I will simply keep switching browsers. Plain and simple. When they all do this I will write my own //GH

Translation:

[wile_e8]

Mozilla would have preferred to see the content industry move away from locking content to a specific device (so called node-locking), and worked to provide alternatives.

Instead, this approach has now been enshrined in the W3C EME specification. With Google and Microsoft shipping W3C EME and content providers moving over their content from plugins to W3C EME Firefox users are at risk of not being able to access DRM restricted content (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu), which can make up more than 30% of the downstream traffic in North America.

Translation: We don't like this, but if we boycott it we are going to lose users to browsers run by companies more concerned about keeping media companies happy so they can keep licensing content.

Re:Translation:

[93 Escort Wagon]

Although until they start supporting h.264 and h.265, isn't this whole discussion a bit premature?

Re:Translation:

[robmv]

Firefox already support h.264, go to vimeo with a Windows 7 Firefox or Linux with GStreamer plugins and it will play without plugins

Re:Translation:

[Microlith]

They deferred on that to the platform. And stuff being routed to the CDM won't be handled by the browser anyway.

Re:Translation:

[93 Escort Wagon]

Well, no - with Windows it's handing the decoding tasks off to the OS. It's only on Windows that it does it - it doesn't work on a Mac (even though it could do the same thing), and on Linux without gstreamer you're SOL.

Re:Translation:

[robmv]

Are you repeating what I said?

go to vimeo with a Windows 7 Firefox or Linux with GStreamer plugins and it will play without plugins

Re:Translation:

[Arker]

"Translation: We don't like this, but if we boycott it we are going to lose users to browsers run by companies more concerned about keeping media companies happy so they can keep licensing content."

That's what they are saying, but it's not credible.

It's like saying 'we want to win the fight, but if we fight we might lose, so we are going to give up and not fight instead.'

If you want to fight then fight. I'd back you. If you are not going to fight, then just admit it and shut up about it, quit blowing smoke up my arse that you care when your actions show you do not.

Re:What a fscking disaster

[robmv]

Youtube uses EME for 1080p streams, no EME and you only get 720p or lower

Shape

[Fly Ricky - The Wine]

They can shape the DRM space by refusing to accommodate it. Anything else is de facto acceptance of it.

Oops

[wile_e8]

Or I could have just kept reading to the next line where they say pretty much the same thing.

Re:IceWease

[kthreadd]

Hmm, looks like it's not updated anymore so probably not ideal.

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[Microlith]

Mozilla did not "oust" him. He stepped down after the wider community spoke up. This is being forced by a bunch of DRM happy corps (MS, Apple, Google) and their media industry buddies (Netflix, MPAA, et. al.)

Re:"given our vision of a completely open Web"

[gl4ss]

yeah..
anyways, the idea is that closed source plugins would talk directly to signed video drivers.

now, nobody could have an open vision of web where thats feasible.

Re:So this is what happens when Brendan Eich leave

[Derek Pomery]

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Well, here you are standing on principles. :)

You wanted to watch Youtube vids, so you run Google Chrome, which has even more liberal implementation of this DRM.

You didn't boycott Youtube.

So, this is why Firefox is implementing it. They no longer have the leverage. Google Chrome is bundled with Flash, with Adobe Acrobat, with Oracle Java. It is pushed on every google website people interact with - Search, Plus, Docs, Youtube, Translate. There's the google app store, ChromeOS, Android...

I doubt Brendan would have held out against this either. Firefox' choice is to accede to its users, or become even more marginalised.

I'm glad they are using their limited remaining leverage to try and at least ensure user privacy and security and offer something that is cross-platform, with an open source auditable wrapper and actually works under Linux.

Re:Not relevant

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

There are other options as well.

You have a LOT of Windows and Shareware, in that list. ;-)

I browse from a 1995 era SGI, and a QNX Neutrino RTOS VM. I'm contemplating Acorn RiscOS on a RaspberryPi.

sharing is slavery, rape is caring

[Thud457]

But who would win in a fight? RMS or Ayn?

Re:sharing is slavery, rape is caring

[Guest316]

RMS, easily. His foot fungus is like spinach is to Popeye.

Re:So this is what happens when Brendan Eich leave

[Derek Pomery]

Oh, and BTW, I find that https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
works pretty darn well if you want to watch YouTube in Firefox without plugins.

You might have to fiddle with the addon pref "YouTube video loading method" and possibly hit the http://youtube.com/html5/ opt-in page first, but it usually just works.

neccary evil

[davydagger]

about a decade ago, IBM first wanted to implement something like Secure-Boot. They went to the open source community, wrote a FOSS Linux driver, but we told them to take a hike. They did.

Later, MS did it, with much secrecy, and it was rammed down our throats.

I don't like DRM one bit, but this seems like good damage control.

Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share!

[kthreadd]

The only differences I've noticed is that they made the tabs almost impossible to distinguish, because Flat Is Cool!

I've found that it's now much easier to see the active tab.

and they appear to have moved the back and forward buttons.

They are still where they used to be, on the left side of the address bar.

simple solution:

[nimbius]

Fork the code. Maybe mozilla has no qualms about fucking its users with shady blobs but as a user, i sure as hell have a problem with it.
assert ($mad as $hell);

Re:What a fscking disaster

[Phs2501]

Youtube uses EME for 1080p streams, no EME and you only get 720p or lower

Youtube uses Media Source Extensions for 1080p streams. That's completely different; it's a way to source data to a <video> element from Javascript. They use it to implement their dynamic HTTP streaming, where rather than just sucking down a file you suck down individual file segments allowing dynamic quality adjustments based on your available bandwidth. There's no DRM involved.

Re:Not relevant

[armanox]

I've got Firefox 3 running on a 1997 era SGI...

Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share!

[JustOK]

Lotsa good Tuxedo browsers. Just sayin.

Re:Thanks for NOTHING

[JustOK]

I thought it was only a little evil bit.

Re:Not relevant

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I've got Firefox 3 running on a 1997 era SGI...

The pink address bar... I edited .Xresources to make it pale yellow, for a while.

Re:Not relevant

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Ah, that explains it; you're the Clifford Stoll of this place!

Someday, ask me about my connection to Markus Hess. We had a Fortran 77 class together, before his infamy...

Sources. sometimes leave them out.

[bussdriver]

People naturally shoot the messenger and it goes in reverse as well. Not logical, but that that is how it goes.

Quote Hitler all you wish but it is not practical to cite him as the source of the quote. Same goes with any other evil person who might say something relevant, cogent, or true. (Yes, Ayn Rand IS evil and I'm one who doesn't think the sociopaths she practically idolizes are evil.)

Sad seeing this

[sasparillascott]

It's sad seeing this, but its also good to keep in mind - this standard was pushed by Microsoft, Google and others. As such its already "live" in Chrome (as of Release 25 if memory serves, current Chrome release is 29 I believe) as its in WebKit (so ad Safari and Opera as well). Microsoft will add it to IE if they haven't already - leaving Firefox and its slowly dwindling user base. Since 75% of the PC web and nearly all of the mobile web will be making use of this - it'd be a market share death sentence for Mozilla to take a stand and say we just won't implement these "standards" in Firefox - (JMHO, but most general users would notice that what they want using this cgap works with Chrome, IE etc. and not with Firefox and just stop using Firefox making the Firefox user base melt away faster). I don't like Mozilla doing this, but I can easily understand why they are.

Re:Sad seeing this

[Arker]

You should ask yourself why Firefox's userbase is shrinking though. And that has a lot to do with crappy decisions like this. The Firefox userbase was gained by being the better browser, without activex driveby attacks and with prompts before activating plugins.

Every time they get more like the other browsers (supposedly because they are afraid of using losers) they lose more users (because their userbase was attracted to different values than they now pursue.)

So it's a self-defeating strategy. And in the meantime the one force left on the web that still could have had some effect is refusing to even try. RIP Firefox. We had some good times.

Re:Sad seeing this

[gronofer]

I think it's unlikely that the DRM vendors will even support Firefox.

Re:So this is what happens when Brendan Eich leave

[BZ]

You really think this sort of decision, complete with all the negotiations involved, was made over the course of a month?

Re:Pragmatic, makes sense.

[BZ]

We've tried sandboxing the plug-in process Flash runs in. It breaks all sorts of existing Flash-using stuff, unfortunately.

The benefit of having a sandbox from day 1 is that you don't have that problem.

Re:What a fscking disaster

[DarwinSurvivor]

Hmm, I wonder if that's why youtube-viewer only seems to be able to stream 720p and lower resolutions.

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[SuricouRaven]

It's amusing to read the reports on right-leaning news sites. According to them, he was forced out by the 'gay mafia.' They use that phrase quite a lot.

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[Lord Kano]

Yeah, after intense pressure he was "allowed to resign". That's totally a different thing.

LK

Re:Not relevant

[sillybilly]

I remember when Linux was good/decent too. Windows always had more stuff written for it, because it was a standard, and it was always difficult to find equivalent stuff for Linux for a lot of stuff. But nowadays Linux suffers from the same ills that plague the rest of the software world - bloat. Like Winzip 15 is 110 MB. For a friggin zipper prog. Basic Linux 3 comes on 2 floppies, and includes tar gz as a tiny fraction. What the hell is Winzip 15 doing that takes 77 floppies?

You can opt not to use DRM in the future. I for one never ever watched a DVD, because of the DRM it contains. Except a few minutes one of my friends played and I watched it by accident. But I abstain from DRM. I also bought a book on google books just to find out what I bought came with DRM. Yuckkk! Oh well, but they should have told me in advance, and then I would not have purchased. I'm also a halfass vegetarian, I don't eat meat at home all year except some Chinese takeout on like on Good Friday, or when I pass E-check emissions testing, or I get hungry at work and the vending machine if full of meat-sandwiches, and candybars don't really cut it for the price - have you seen how expensive vending machine things are compared to what you get? Vending machine stuff keeps shrinking in size and going up in price.

So anyway, DRM is coming, DRM lockdown is coming. Grab your downloads while you can from the web, and don't ditch XP/Win2k/Win95 because you got grandfathered rights with those. Hopefully. You might have to bury your old computers in your backyard, to hide them from gov't raids, when they become illegal because it's possible to use nonDRM stuff on them, like it used to be in the good old days.

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[FuzzNugget]

To be fair, they both screw people in the ass.

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[Lord Kano]

A very real difference is that one of them only wants to do that with the consenting.

LK

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[Lord Kano]

That's precisely why I don't have any references to my employer on my social media accounts.

I am free to say that I think that "marriage equality" is a ruse. It's a trick designed to destroy the institution of marriage and use the power of the state to crush religious freedom. And since my name and my employer are so far separated, I can't be blackmailed over it.

LK

Re:Not relevant

[armanox]

I don't have an issue with non-invasive DRM. Don't misunderstand me. I don't like a lot of things that are common in modern setups, and liked how simple things used to be. That doesn't mean that I won't watch a DVD. Because I do. I use Flash to watch Amazon on demand. But I agree that a lot of programs have gotten bloated, either in size or feature bloat. Plus, I don't like the current trend of removing configuration options from everything. And the methods that stay get more and more complicated.

Re:Not relevant

[armanox]

Curious - what are you running on the SGI? I've got two Octanes here with IRIX 6.5.29 (I have the official disk set for .29 from SGI), and for a while I had an O2 with .30 and Gentoo Linux installed. I'm using one of the Octanes as a webserver right now (running a custom compiled Apache 2.4 and PHP 5.5).

Re:Fuck Web DRM

[rossdee]

I am not a Netflix customer

I do however wath some videos on Amazon (Prime)

Re:What a fscking disaster

[Phs2501]

Yeah, Youtube now only encodes 360p and 720p single-file versions of videos at this point; if you don't support DASH, that's all you get. Notably 480p doesn't seem to be on this list generally. Firefox itself won't support enough MSE to run Youtube until (I think) v31, bug here.

Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share!

[exomondo]

And... now I'm actively looking for a new casual browser.

It's open source, can't you just remove the part you don't like?

Re:Not relevant

[dirtyhippie]

Off-topic, but I've always wondered - why on earth do people still use WinZIP when every major GUI has had transparent Zip support for years and years?

you're giving the crooks a pass

[globaljustin]

this is bigger than an open source project or even one browser

this is about the standards of the internet and openness...no DRM is just as important as Net Neutrality

the W3C are total sell-outs to corporate interests in DRM...complete and total...now it appears firefox has joined them

the WHATWG is the only reason we are stuck with 90s-era spaghetti code on websites now...they developed HTML5 and finalized CSS3...

HTML would be spyware if the W3C had its way...and HTML5 would not exist w/o the WHATWG

Re:you're giving the crooks a pass

[david_thornley]

DRM as important as Net Neutrality? You have got to be kidding.

Without Net Neutrality, we can get a net that's painfully slow for general use (or actual peer-to-peer stuff), designed for one-way transmission of content from big media to the user, while dramatically increasing the cost of entry to the market. No matter how much you're for Net Neutrality, you won't be able to escape the consequences of not having it.

DRM only affects copyrighted stuff if the copyright holders use it. It does nothing to stifle competition. Remember iTunes music with DRM? What allowed Apple to ditch the DRM was the Amazon store that came along without DRM. It does nothing to stop a musician or author or whoever from releasing non-DRMed art, and if that artist is more successful it will lead to imitation. And, of course, if you hate DRM and refuse to have anything to do with it, all you have to do is avoid DRMed stuff.

Linux version

[Bazman]

Are Adobe going to make a Linux version of the DRM module? Because their record with Linux versions of their PDF DRM tech is VERY POOR. We get research articles from the British Library which are DRM'd, and our Linux users can't read them. One solution is to complain to BL at which point they will often just email you a plain old unDRMd PDF. The mega-facepalm thing is that the British Library came out against DRM-content a few years ago, and have done a massive backtrack because the publishers didn't like it.

Whether DRM is a bad thing or an insanely bad thing (ok, or a good thing, whatever), I don't ever want to see "This Content Cannot Be Viewed On Your Nerdy Linux Operating System" popups ever. But if this is Adobe's shitcreek we're wading through, I think I will.

Re:So this is what happens when Brendan Eich leave

[RR]

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Well, here you are standing on principles. :)

You wanted to watch Youtube vids, so you run Google Chrome, which has even more liberal implementation of this DRM.

You didn't boycott Youtube.

I feel no inconsistency.

I've been using computers a long time. In the old days, you would use the Gopher program to access Gopher services, you would use the FTP program to transfer files using FTP, you would use RealPlayer to listen to RealAudio streams. I think of Google Chrome as an insanely capable access client for Google services. Mozilla thinks I should be using Firefox for every web site? They're being morons.

Google's web properties are broken, like we think of IE6-ActiveX web sites as being broken. No, Youtube's HTML5 doesn't always work. Just usually doesn't cut it.

As for what Google gets from me, I use Adblock Plus, and run most of my sessions in short-lived Incognito windows. They're going to have to work for their keep.

Re:I mod you (+5, Funny)

[BanHammor]

Oh hey, you might also want to uninstall your Linux distribution because of binary blobs in the kernel. Of course they are not mandatory, neither they are loaded at all times, but EVIL PROPRIETARY BOLLOCKS.

Re:Not relevant

[sillybilly]

Unfortunately, the answer to that is why software business is so difficult. Why do people use Borland Delphi when there is Lazarus, why do they use Windows when there is ReactOS/Wine, why do people use MS DOS when there is FreeDOS, why do people use Maple when there is Maxima - this last case illustrates that software used to be not a business, when Macsyma was developed, same when Unix was developed in its early stages, and FreeBSD/Linux were maintained free competition to the commercial overpriced and gargantuan licensed Unices. This core issue is why DRM is a must from the point of view of people who put the daily bread on the table by coding. I for one used to like Adobe Acrobat 3 and 4, and even 5 was decent, but starting with 6 it was yuckkk, and my favorite version now is Foxit Reader 2.3 (as newer versions of this one suck too.) But with DRM'd pdf's you only have one choice - Adobe Digital Editions 2.0, written in dotnet, crawling painfully beyond belief on a 5 watt 7 hr battery life HP Mini 210 Intel Atom chipset netbook, compared to the same stuff without DRM read in Foxit Reader 2.3. The amount of pdf readers out there is huge, but with DRM there is only one: Adobe, whether it sucks or not.

Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share!

[God Of Atheism]

The UI changes do not bother me that much, but the fact that it's much slower to start up does.

Re:How is this better than simply not supporting i

[BanHammor]

Admins of sites don't like themselves blamed. They will just hang a big sign saying "your browser can't support DRM, so switch to the one that does"

Re:DRM: Closed-source only?

[BanHammor]

By the way, have there ever been open-source DRM solutions? I don't remember those.

Re:Not relevant

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I dream of fast, 2 CPU Octanes... Is there frame-buffer support for X?

My Indigo R4000 Elan runs 6.5.22. That was the end-of-the-line for the older, GIO MIPS machines. I got the disc set on eBay, years ago.

I have a purple Indigo2 Max Impact - I think it's on the same Irix rev. I can only run one space heater at a time. :-)

There's a funky board made, to use PS/2 peripherals for the Indigo proprietary mouse and keyboard. I have that plugged to two PS/2-USB adaptors, which each have Bluetooth adaptors, 1 for mouse, one for KB. The whole arrangement curls around the back of the enclosure.

DRM-only browser?

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

Might one just extract all the non-DRM stuff from an open source like FireFox to create a DRM-only browser that I could use on a dumb box with no HD or permanent OS (I'm thinking a CD-bootable linux box that held just the FireFoxDRM so it could watch DRM stuff, then I'd use my old copy of FireFox with no DRM for my real life. Or is this not just about protecting users from DRM-enabled vulnerabilities?

It's impossible

[araxius]

What can firefox do with it's sandbox? DRM will be loaded as a DLL, it will have it's own resources, it doesn't even need firefox to give it access to files. IMHO, the only benefit this mess we call internet had was being open, and it's gone. No matter what you do.

you're ignorantly defending the RIAA/MPAa

[globaljustin]

DRM only affects copyrighted stuff if the copyright holders use it. It does nothing to stifle competition.

this shows you're essentially taking the industry view...you're taking the label's side when they sued John Fogerty for "plaigarizing himself"

that's your position...it has been dispelled ad infinitum here on /. so just go away and never post again

Remember iTunes music with DRM? What allowed Apple to ditch the DRM was the Amazon store that came along without DRM.

this shows your ignorance

Steve Jobs was a brilliant technology *marketer* because he had whateverthefuck genius is required to let labels put their music on iTunes.

it was a snow job...the DRM on itunes purchased songs has been cicumvented and torrented all over the world

copyright is fine...the **creators** have the right to control their art (not the bullshit capital-hogging idiots biz people at labels) bottlenecking technology with "DRM" because you don't understand scalability in digital media

this is because you don't understand technology...that's the problem here...you and ignorant people like you

Re:you're ignorantly defending the RIAA/MPAa

[david_thornley]

Huh? I'm not defending DRM here, I'm saying it's less important than Net Neutrality. If given the choice to abolish DRM or allow a large planetoid to hit Earth, I'm keeping DRM. There's lots of things worse than it. Slavery. Nuclear war. Justin Bieber (well, maybe not).

Nor did I say Apple music DRM wasn't a snow job. Jobs didn't want it, and made it as unobtrusive (and ineffective) as he could, but he couldn't negotiate it away until there was a large competitor offering non-DRMed music.

do both now

[globaljustin]

why does it matter if you rank DRM above Net Neutrality in importance?

that's like saying, in your humble opinion, death by hanging would be better than death by lethal injection

it's a completely and utterly pointless distinction and you waste everyone's time by making it

*both* opposing DRM'ed HTML like the W3C & firefox support AND supporting net neutrality are necessary and can both be done simultaneously

Re:do both now

[david_thornley]

The statement above was that DRM is as important as Net Neutrality. This being the Internet, I disagreed and wrote why. If you don't care whether I think that, why did you reply?

The thing about death by hanging and death by lethal injection is that they're both death. Not having Net Neutrality can destroy the Internet as we know it. DRM is bad, but it has limited effect and you can avoid it. If I'm a personal opponent of DRM, I can avoid stuff that's DRMed. If I'm a personal supporter of Net Neutrality, it doesn't mean I can get to /. easily if it hasn't paid its protection money.

Re:do both now

[globaljustin]

yeah, and my point is, why bother even making as distinction for my point?

why bother to disagree at all when either way it's the same directive: DO BOTH

so you've just proven that the only reason you typed that post (and continue still) is to make a bullshit counterpoint so you could feel special

we can DO BOTH NOW and suggesting otherwise, for any reason, is stupid

Why?

[allo]

Firefox should stand for an open web. there are browsers like chrome, to support drm. The people firefox might lose, are not the people, who use firefox because they want an open web. Having the maximum of users isn't a neccessary goal for an opensource project, but only for a for-profit company. Firefox is no such company. Lets say google stops sponsoring firefox. Will it die? Of course not, it will continue to be improved by volunteers, maybe even with a better morale than now, not only regarding DRM.

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[dave420]

If you think the institution of marriage is in danger, you should be pressing for making divorce illegal. (Way more people get divorced every year than gay people get married.) As you're not, your position is indistinguishable on every level from a homophobe who simply doesn't want gay people to have the same rights; that gay people are second-class citizens. Don't be surprised if you get confused for one, as people honestly have no way of telling you apart. Of course, if you were just hired as the CEO of a very public company, and it turns out you gave money to a fringe group who were actively trying to deny rights to people, and you didn't do anything to apologise for attempting to deny rights to people, you'd get fired. Shocker. Big surprise.

Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we

[Lord Kano]

If they were a "fringe group", the majority of voters wouldn't have sided with them.

LK

Re:Not relevant

[murdocj]

Because not everyone thinks the same. Why do people drive different cars? Why do people pick different jobs? Why do some people live in the country and other in Manhattan? Welcome to the real world.

Re:Not relevant

[Wootery]

Ah yes. The old because it actually works defence...