Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 38 Arrives With DRM Required To Watch Netflix
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from VentureBeat: Mozilla today launched Firefox 38 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Notable additions to the browser include Digital Rights Management (DRM) tech for playing protected content in the HTML5 video tag on Windows, Ruby annotation support, and improved user interfaces on Android. Firefox 38 for the desktop is available for download now on Firefox.com, and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play.
Note that there is a separate download for Firefox 38 without the DRM support. Our anonymous reader adds links to the release notes for desktop and Android.
See subject line.
Fucking DRM asswipes!
I think you meant Digital Restrictions Management. It's a sad day for Mozilla, the w3c, the web as a whole, and open culture. At least there's still the iceweasel fork that doesn't come with this shit.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
so, do we now have open source firefox and non open source firefox (like we had with netscape) ?
Is there a version of firefox I can use that does not include this code, but remains compatible with my addons?
I don't want to contribute to mozillas usage stats.
I like watching Netflix on my Linux laptop without having to do crazy software mods. Color me conflicted.
"Mac OS X: Implemented a subset of the Media Source Extensions (MSE) API to allow native HTML5 playback on YouTube"
This is the only thing preventing me from uninstalling Flash on every machine I can get my hands on.
Surely the Debian team won't put up with this?
Please?
Don't be evil.
Did you miss the note about speculative loading? visit a page thts got a thousand links and see what happens...
At least there's still the iceweasel fork that doesn't come with this shit.
The DRM isn't a closed source part of *firefox*. It's a separate external plugin (like flash, etc.) that runs sandboxed (like chrome) and that can be
disabled and/or removed like any other plugins (or you can download a version of the installer that doesn't even pack the DRM module).
You don't need to go as far as Iceweasel.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Is there an explanation of how this works ? At the end of the rendering pipeline shouldn't there be an unencrypted frame for display, and couldn't somebody it just grab it from there ?
From 3.6 to DRM in just 3 years. Lets wait for the autopsy report.
DRM makes the browser an agent of someone other than the user.
so, do we now have open source firefox and non open source firefox
The DRM isn't a closed source part of *firefox*. It's a separate external plugin (like flash, etc.) that runs sandboxed (like chrome) and that can be
disabled and/or removed like any other plugins (or you can download a version of the installer that doesn't even pack the DRM module).
You won't have a separate opensource and closed source firefox.
The choice is whether to use or not the external 3rd party binary plugin (juste like flash, again).
It's just that the default installer of Firefox for Windows does pack the .DLL together with Firefox for end-user's convenience. But as mentionned, you can download an installer without it.
And even if you install it, it's up to you to use or not this piece of closed source software.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
it's a completely external plugin (similar to flash).
You can just as well run this plug-in on Iceweasel, just as you could also run stock Firefox without it (the plugin can be disabled, and there's an installer that doesn't even include it).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Good to see they're working on the important stuff, rather than fixing bugs. No wonder their market share is rising so fast. Oh, sorry, I meant sinking.
according to all what I've read:
Yup, they have indeed implemented it this way (DRM is mainly a small external plugins. Firefox feeds encrypted stream into it, and get decrypted stream out. Plugin runs in a sand box and isn't allowed to do anything else)
But if you read the original EME specification, there's another possible implementation:
- it's also possible to write an EME plugin that is entirely in charge of presenting the decrpyted video on screen. Firefox feeds encrypted data into 3rd party plugin, plugin it self access screen and displays video on it.
That would be a clear violation of the sandbox that 3rd party EME plugins are currently run in, but in theory the specifications offer such alternative.
Still, even such an approach is open to screen-grabbing so it's just as useless as the current implementation and only opens security risks (as the 3rd party EME plugin won't be inside a sandbox restricting to only stream IO and decryption).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
there are even tutorial online to enable the google chrome CDM on chromium.
You get your usual chromium, with the EME being the only external 3rd party binary piece of software.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
02 The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.
not when you bundle digital restrictions management with your browser and only offer the truly open one as an 'option'
04 Individuals security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional.
quit enabling googles malware system, and stop enabling targeted ads by default.
05 Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their own experiences on it.
thats the direct antithesis of DRM. same goes for point 06 on interoperability.
07 Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource.
but DRM does not.
08 Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability and trust.
I dont remember hearing a goddamn thing about you adding DRM or targeted ads before you just decided to do it.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The Big Three Operating Systems? As in Windows, OS X, and Systemd?
Yes, you do, to show that you don't want that capability in your web browser.
- HTML5 can advertise whether EME is supported or not.
Surf on Youtube, Netflix, etc. without the CDM plugin, they will see this.
Even if you downloaded Firefox with DRM, but simply disabled it, content providers will be aware.
(Same as surfing the web with "NoScript" and similar Flash blocker)
- if you're on Windows: Download the installer that only contains code by mozilla foundation. Do not download the installer that includes the 3rd party closed source plug-in.
Thus mozilla sees on their download stats that you didn't wan't it.
- or if you're on Linux (once DRM is ready, that's not the case yet): only install the .deb / .rpm of base Firefox. Do not install the .deb / .rpm of this CDM, nor of flash, nor of any other closed source 3rd party plugin that you disprove of.
Thus usage stats of you distro's server will show that you do not want these installed.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You freetards can't even read the fucking summary, can you!
So, I am confused. Netflix delivers content DRM free, then Firefox adds DRM? And then firefox removes the encryption and you watch it?
Or I could download Firefox without DRM, and watch Netflix, skipping this altogether?
Or I could just use Chrome and get Netflix without this pointless garbage?
I guess I just don't understand how it serves a purpose at all.
Or is it just that they (Mozilla) are for some reason worried about me recording it as I stream? Because that seems like something Netflix should worry about, not Mozilla.
Every time there's a new Firefox feature, there's always tons of people complaining. Slashdot is amazing in that regard. There's even one comment that said "no wonder their market share is sinking", yet when Mozilla has to do feature parity with other browsers to keep the users that for some reason need freaking Netflix on a browser, people complain. If they didn't, people would complain they didn't.
Mozilla did this in the best way possible: an optional plugin that you can disable, remove, or even avoid downloading. Yet, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That should be Firefox's new motto.
rather than fixing bugs
For some users, "I can't watch Netflix, your browser is broken !" is an important bug enough.
At least providing a way to install an optional 3rd party plugin to handle DRM, *and* provide a sandbox that restricts the plugin to only decrypt the encrypted data stream it receives (no file-system access. no network access) isn't such a bad idea given the insistance of end user to access restricted content.
It's not as if Firefox itself has become closed source.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to watch Netflix. There's a reason they mail so many DVDs.
then just disable EME (disable the 3rd party CDM plugin. or uninstall it. or don't install it to begin with)
so that when you surf on video content delivering sites, they see that your browser don't support it.
(test here).
But I won't be holding my hopes. See how much not activating Flash player did help against it... you had to have a very big player (Apple) introducing a whole range of very popular products sold in big numbers (iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc.) completely devoid of flash support before web companies started to notice it. /. er won't be using CDM plugins for a couple of weeks will probably go completely unnoticed by most web companies.
Mozilla tried to fight against DRM for quite some time before finally throwing the towel.
The fast that a couple of
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
All these gpl tards talking about freedom and yet they don't want users to be able to have the option(freedom) to choose a drm plugin to use for a service like Netflix on linux. If you don't want DRM just uninstall or disable it. This is why Linux Desktop(android is for phone) is at 1% usage because people can't stand the limitations that are imposed by RMS cult following tards.
And their way of thinking is hypocritical because in their mind IT'S OKAY to download and upload movies/music without permission from the content owners, BUT!!!! not okay when somebody does not release source code of their software product that contains gpl code because to the gpl tards that is stealing from the community. Fucking double standard.
There isn't much to crack in Firefox itself.
It only provides a sandbox inside which one can run a 3rd party binary CDM plug in.
Encrypted stream goes in.
Decrypted stream goes out.
Nothing else is authorised for this plugin.
It's more or less the same situation as Flash (it's not firefox itself that is playing the flash content), except with a much better and way much more restrictive sandbox.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
backlash. You know, the one where people grab pitchforks for being forced to pay for walking into a cinema and viewing a movie with their own legs and eyes.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I downloaded the version without DRM, since firefox is my browser of choise, but i will not be searching for alternatives.
Still, it would've been better to leave the DRM where it belongs, in plugins to be installed by each user who wants to have their rights managed.
That's exactly the case right now.
Firefox only provides a sandbox into which the 3rd party CDM plugin will be run.
Encrypted stream goes in.
Decrypted stream goes out.
Nothing else is authorised for this plugin.
It's more or less the same situation as Flash (it's not firefox itself that is playing the flash content), except with a much better and way much more restrictive sandbox.
They are merely providing 1 installer packing 1 CDM by adobe inside for end user convenience.
But there's even an installer with only the mozilla code, without 3rd party pluging if you want.
Yep this should be an easy crack, with most of the source code being available. Firefox 38 will also be known as Netflix Video Ripper 1.0!
Actually not. Firefox doesn't handle decryption it self. Only provides the sandbox into which to run it.
To rip Netflix, you'll need to go the other way around:
- creat your own video downloader, that simply harness any of the 3rd party CDM plugins compatible with Netflix (Firefox use a CDM by adobe, Google Chrome uses another by Widevine).
- as Firefox basically restricts their to only function as a decryption filter, you need to provide code that feeds the data into the plugin, and code that package the decrypted stream into a MKV.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
While they keep on adding stuff like this which is okay, it seems like they neglect security. Firefox's security is pathetic when it ought to be a top priority.
While this is great, shouldnt Firefox finally get around to doing something about having a real sandbox on Linux on par with what Google Chrome has had for years? I mean come on, Google Chrome has had this since 2013 and yet it still on Firefox's to-do, while somehow they can manage to find time for all of this other stuff. Maybe they should work on getting the sandbox first and then work on these other features after that? I think security should be the #1 priority. Firefox has added a million other things over 2 years but someone cannot find the time to get the sandbox working. This is very serious as a sandbox is necessary, and essential, with a code base as large as Firefox it has been shown that there is usually some memory error that creeps in somewhere. The sandbox makes is to that even if they can take over a process, thats as far as they can get as the rendering code does not have access to kernel surfaces for things it does not need.
Because of the lack of sandbox, Firefox remains pathetic, the worst and most insecure browser that now exists. Even IE has a sandbox now, so Firefox is even less secure than IE. Yes IE, has had its CVEs, but so has firefox, but the sandbox is essential, due to the fact that it protects you at least to some degree in that time between the bug being implemented, being found and then finally repaired.
well currently, the 3rd party plugin is restricted in a sandbox.
It can't access the filesystem.
It can't access the network.
The only thing it's allowed to, is receive a flux of (encrypted) data, and give back decrypted data.
Situation is *much* better than with previous technologies (video playing plugins, flash, etc.)
CDM plugins are currently restricted to only decrypt data.
They can't try to get access to something else.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I think you mean Digital Revenue Minimization. Why TF would I want to go to the trouble of getting DRM to work on stuff I'm paying for? If DRM were just a thing pirates had to deal with but paying customers didn't have to deal with, it would be ok. But in fact, the exact opposite is true: DRM is a customers-only problem.
That I can't play Netflix without weird software, is why I'm not a Netflix customer and I just pirate their shows instead. I don't need the hassle. Who does? When you apply DRM, you're telling people, "Don't be our customer. Don't pay us, unless your time is worthless and stress doesn't matter to you."
the third is no DRM like they have had until now. If somebody clicks on DRM content they can have a "Do you wish to download a plugin to play this [read license details here]?" box.
...which might as well download a huge piece of software, that not only plays the DRMed video, but also is massively filled with spyware. (see the video players that some porn site used to ask people to install)
*That* I would consider much more poison than firefox 38.
What Mozilla have introduced is an API that supports using a 3rd party CDM plugin. this plugin is here only to decrypt video data, and is running inside a sandbox that blocks it from anything else (no filesystem nor network access, according to info from mozilla).
And what they provide is 2 installers.
- an installer with 1 specific CDM plugin by adobe pre-packaged. (for most user who'll want DRM content, and for the few who will disabled it outright)
- an installer without any CDM plugin for those who don't even want to go near it.
The latter, I would more "poison-free, compatible with poison if you like" rather than "poison lite".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Actually, support for EME *is* implemented as a sandbox, into which the 3rd party CDM plugin runs.
sandbox block access to filesystem and network.
only encrypted stream goes in. only decrypted stream goes out.
Okay, it's not as pervasive as Google Chrome's sandbox (they tend to sandbox as many other plugins as possible), but it makes the situation much better than what was before with Flash.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
because the API between firefox and the CDM are completely different.
usual plugins use NPAPI
CDM for EME-support runs inside a special sandbox that restricts it. CDM plugins are prevented from filesystem and network accesses (unlike Flash, for example)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
the story headline reads like only DRM is enabled for Windows and not Mac.
To make this work you take your open source Firefox and download the Adobe Content Decryption Module (CDM) - a closed source ''black box''. Who knows what is in there, maybe Adobe took some dollars from the NSA and put some spyware in there -- you can't tell because the channel to download the video is encrypted. Maybe they have also taken some rubles and inserted some code from the FSB (KGB successor) and maybe from elsewhere ?
Who knows ? I don't -- it is closed source.
Before this new version of Firefox, the DRM was delivered via Silverlight. Either way, you are running a closed-source binary blob that handles DRM.
...and Firefox didn't have annotation support before? At least for me, on Firefox 37, the ruby tag shows up correctly.
I'm on firefox 38 now and I uninstalled silverlight before installing to test if netflix worked without it. Apparently firefox just installs silverlight silently alongside, so this isn't really that special.
An open source project has DRM protection?
// call_drm_bullshit()
foo()
bar();
Annndddd done. I'm an elite hacker!
...I'm going to come at this from another angle:
Instead of focusing on Firefox, let's focus on Netflix for a moment. Who the hell needs Netflix to pirate? 99% of things on Netflix are published elsewhere first. Netflix is equivalent to syndication--the guys that play stuff after it's already been premiered.
People target the services that premier shows for privacy. They don't wait 2 years for it to show up on Netflix to THEN pirate it. They go to the source.
Lastly, Netflix already rents out DVDs--which can be easily pirated and show up long before they hit online Netflix!
The only thing this could protect would be Netflix originals. So my point is this: It's either to fulfill contractual B.S. with their media providers, or, it's a complete waste of money that accomplishes nothing. My money would be on the former, though, because lots of stupid things like this are the result of "pleasing the customer."
I do not want to download the version without DRM support. I want to automatically update to the latest version without getting a binary blob from Adobe, the company with the second-worse security track record on the net, bringing us such fine products ad Flash and Adobe Reader.
There are some positive aspects to the Encrypted Media Extensions API. It does provide some DRM options for companies like Netflix, which isn't great, but it can also enhance the security of personal media files. It will enable a web app to let you upload an encrypted video, then stream it from their server to your computer without having to download the entire thing and decrypt it -- without any browser plugin.
So if you really don't want anyone being able to see your personal videos (not just Netflix's videos), this thing isn't all bad.
Why is their not room for both the open and closed cultures?
Assuming s/their/there/:
Because the concentrated non-free media use their vast financial resources to lobby governments to make existence harder for free culture.
Big media uses copyright to squelch competition. It has successfully lobbied for successive extensions of the term of copyright, which reduces the chance that a work will enter the public domain while it remains culturally significant. It uses copyright claims to squelch comment on its works and "similarity" claims under copyright to interfere even with creation of original works, as you have no way of telling whether the song you wrote infringes the copyright of some other existing song out there.
Big media uses its massive selling power to convince viewers to purchase player devices designed to play only works created by sufficiently large commercial enterprises, giving it a captive audience. These include such as video game consoles (with their code signing), Blu-ray Disc players (with the requirement of an AACS license for BDMV), home Internet service plans (with their bans on running a home server, enforced through carrier-grade NAT or TOS disconnection), and AM and FM radio receivers (governed by scarce exclusive licenses to transmit). Furthermore, there exists only a finite amount of electromagnetic spectrum. Case in point: People commuting to and from work who are unwilling to pay for expensive cellular data plan have only AM and FM radio as means of discovering new music. When was the last time, for example, that you heard free recordings of free music on radio? (Here, by "free" I mean distributed under a license conforming to the Definition of Free Cultural Works.)
Big media even controls elections. All major U.S. television news outlets share a corporate parent with a major movie studio: CBS is Paramount, ABC is Disney, NBC is Universal, CNN is Warner Bros., and Fox is (duh) Last Century Fox. This gives them enormous power over name recognition, both in campaign contributions and in "in-kind" donations of name recognition through news coverage. It also helps them control what issues voters feel are important to them, as they tend not to report on threats to the existence of free culture unless it's something extraordinarily high-profile like Wikipedia's PROTECTIP protest blackout of 2012.
Hey, if you think DRM is evil then do not use the Firefox with it. But after seeing Netflix on Chrome in HTML5 its definitely worth it to me. Don't know what all the DRM fuss is all about? We all knew it would come with HTML5 licensed content did we not?
That is all I want to know.
Because I'd rather pay $8 for an honest license than pirate for the rest of my life.
You appear to think there are two options: use DRM or infringe copyright. There are actually three options: use DRM, infringe copyright, or voluntarily do without.
Disabled it already
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If so, then this is surely completely useless.
Common, it's DRM. The kind of thing where cryptography's canonical "Alice" and "Eve" are both the same personl (= the end user). You can't both simultaneously lock out and give access to the same persons.
Of course DRM is bound to be useless and stupid. It's stupid by definition.
It's not useful, only annoying.
Is there anything that stops someone getting the source and writing a function to simply dump out the decrypted stream?
Currently, given the way it's written: as far as I know: No, nothing is preventing you to wrap a dumper function outside a CDM plupgins. Neither firefox's Adobe CDM, nor Google Chrome's Widevine's etc.
The official specs might pose a problem. In addition to the current mode of operation ("encrypted stream goes in, decrypted goes out"), EME specification offer another mode of operation where the CDM plug-in is in charge of presenting the video on the screen. (i.e.: it does decrypt the stream, and subsequently decompress it, and display it on the screen).
Currently that should not work because it's a clear violation of the sandbox limitation that Firefox imposes on CDM plugins, but in theory this is doable according to the specs.
And - Surprise! - that too would be just as stupid and useless:
- now instead of storing the output stream into an MKV, you'll just need to do a screen grab instead.
(Also, this mode is very problematic, because it will bypass the video decompression by the usual video stack and, e.g., miss any hardware acceleration supported by it (gstreamer's vaapi / vdpau) ...etc...)
"Store into an MKV" is far from the only thing that you could do to the output of a CDM plugin. "Pipe it to hardware decoding" (for a portable device) or "stream it over the network to a wireless enabled display" (think Wifi enabled TV / chromecast / etc.) are legitimate usage.
By forcing a CDM that handles the display it self, it would be the nightmare of Flash all over again:
- a plugin that is less easy to lock inside a sandbox
- a plugin that isn't really compatible with the HW video acceleration (don't get me started about flash only supporting VDPAU and some cards only having VAAPI)
- a plugin that doesn't work correctly with the sound mixing daemon
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You know someone will do it. DRM is just stupid.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Netflix' DRM tends to stay out of the way.
Unless your playback device happens to be unsupported.
We don't need EME to enhance our security. You can send video just fine over HTTPS, I'm literally receiving HTTPS video from Youtube right now.
Some people need EME to coddle them, or rather their large piles of money. EME is just an attempt to keep the video stream encrypted as long and as obfuscated as possible.
>So if you really don't want anyone being able to see your personal videos
Then you should upload them to a server you can trust. Like a web server you setup yourself with HTTPS only access.
The EME plugin could transfer video frames to the monitor over [some secured channel]
Isn't this called HDCP?
Even a new instance of Firefox is laggy and slow on my 8-core, 3 GHz, OS X machine. Browsing Amazon has become an extreme exercise in patience.
Starting it fresh with about 6 GB of RAM free, Firefox continuously and greedily consumes memory until I have to quit it to make it give back the gigabytes it has swallowed like an overweight, crazed hot-dog eating contest professional.
One positive thing I will say about Firefox is that even with those major warts continuously unaddressed, it still performs better than Safari. And Firefox is*much* better at dealing with the whole "outdated flash" issue. It asks me instead of smacking me in the face with "you can't do that", so I'm inspired to raise digit #3 to Firefox far less often than I am with Safari.
Sigh.
I could really give the south end of a northbound rat for Netflix on a browser. I have a capable dedicated system which is much more pleasant to watch Netflix-y things on. But I sure do wish FF could just browse places like Amazon without killing off my resources. After all, it's a browser. It seems to me, naive and unduly optimistic fool that I am, that it should be able to do such things. Well.
When will application and OS vendors ever understand that it truly is their obligation to make what they release actually work properly before they slather on more features or proceed to a new version?
I know. Never. *Sigh*
I'd demand you FF enthusiasts to get off my virtual lawn now, but FireFox has grown so large and unwieldy, I can't even tell if you're out there any longer. Hello? Hello? Oh, hey, no RAM left. Again. [gets virtual shotgun out]
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/12/mozilla-launches-a-new-firefox-version-without-drm-support/#.4a6ylb:CFbt
So, my Firefox did the whole pop-up thing with a message saying that it was urgent that I upgraded my browser for security reasons.
Did they offer me the DRM free version? NO.
Did they tell me that this next version would be infested with DRM? NO.
If the update was so urgent, why is the DRM free version dated 8th of may and it is now 13th May, it can't have been very urgent can it.
And why is it that when I went to about Firefox on the help menu it checked again for an update and said that none was available when Firefox had already told me that an update was available? FFS.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Playing encrypted content gracefully since.... well, long before the career of most of the folks now stuffing DRM into FireFox.
Quite right about how Digital "Rights" Management is a propaganda term designed to frame the issue as though it's okay to take user/reader rights away from them in the switch from one means of seeing media to another. But Mozilla has always framed its work as "open source". So one should expect with "open"ness -- the open source movement is, as Brad Kuhn pointed out recently, the greenwashing movement it was defined to be. The Free Software Foundation has long pointed out how "open source" differs from "free software" (older essay, younger essay). The younger open source movement accepts proprietary software and the older free software movement does not because open source was defined as a proprietor-friendly response to the user freedom-seeking social movement.
Digital Citizen
As was pointed out above, Mozilla is far from it's core mission statement. They're more focused on whether someone is OK with gay marriage in their personal life* than where the real technological needs are.
Going to work at Mozilla and/or contributing to the codebase has a high barrier. You not only need to know C/C++, you have to wrap your head around the codebase and more importantly XUL. Little to none of your XUL knowledge will transfer to any other company or project, and if you're working at Mozilla they aren't going to be able to match Apple and Google in terms of pay and resume prestige. Which means a lot of less-competent people, and some people who are very competent yet willing to forgo those aspects because they're passionate about the mission. You need more of the latter.
Over the last 10 years, Mozilla has gotten so far away from the mission that few are really excited about it. People really want tabs in a seperate process so a weird script doesn't crash the entire browser, and Mozilla says it isn't important. Chrome comes out and many love that aspect, and Mozilla says it isn't important before finally saying it's too hard for them to do, and on and on. Thunderbird gets put out to pasture, and Firefox starts focusing on things like "the aweome bar" and personas. They freak out about chrome and become envious and reactionary. They add in DRM so Firefox basically becomes a hypervisor for another platform. It becomes a cycle where getting real talent becomes harder and harder.
As an organization, it's time for a real and serious shake-up in the management on down and a recommitment to the mission, because it's causing a massive talent and capability issue to have a turnaround instead of the slow decline of the last 10 years.
*(odd how they will vote in a president who disagreed with them, but won't work for someone who shared the presidents view 2 years ago)
Download a previous version of Firefox (I stopped updating at version 22.0).
I suggest a dictionary and a quick check of the word:
HYPOCRITE
Only if you wanted to take a look at yourself. In addition, you would also find yourself as an example of being a collaborator, along with Mozilla.
[logical fallacy regarding restriction of restrictions, Libertarian flavor]
Excluded middle fallacy.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
> [*]yes the lemming thing is a myth, but the point stands.
Good point you make there en passant, so to speak.
Obviously only humans are that stupid (and have to project their stupidity on perfectly reasonable lemmings by inventing such a myth).
You very clever :-)
> I for one have trouble with the people who want encryption for themselves but demand others don't use it.
I'm all for it! Netflix and Sony employees and stakeholders, all of the *AAs -- start encrypting your mails *now*! Use GPG! It's FREE!
> If you get your PGP, then they get their DRM
uh-oh seems I jumped too early. Uh... nevermind
The difference is that with EME the server wouldn't have to have access to the video; you wouldn't have to trust it because the video is encrypted before the server sees it. There's still other issues making it hard to adopt, like key exchange, but it's a step in the right direction for more convenient end-to-end encryption.
I know what I will do now, remove Mozilla Firefox and that is one less app to install.
And as to the point of watching movies or TV shows, well I do not ever use Netflix or Hulu.
That is why I use XBMC now Kodi, all the Movies & TV from any part of the World.
At any time and on my cell, tablet, or android box and PC.
So F**K RIAA
Streaming is not e legal, but every new development like voip that is done has to be monetized.
So only a few can profit every time, that is the same reason that I stopped buying music & movies.
When they start doing this crap DRM without asking and or forcing there agenda.
That is when I stopped buying Sony and related products with DRM in my home not even for my kids.
If they wanted there PS**? I told them that they would have purchased on there own.
And now that they are older, now they see what I was talking a bought.
There is no major brands in my home, I spent less and get the same equipment type.
I just look at specs and then buy it, smart TV that is crap.
My 50” TV cost $599.00 and with $100.00 more got Android box that can also print doc's.
I watch anything that want and never worry a bought cable bills, I will view any show at any time.
I can go to the web and do the same things that can be done on any PC's.
And now I just reprogrammed one of the boxes to run my own Linux.
When I view TV they will always ask why are you doing that!!!
I will tell them a PC is for productivity, this is entertainment, music, videos, all in one.
Plugging Hi FY large scream, games, movies all in same place. In every room.
There no more consoles in the house just PC'S and small Boxes.
But most of the zombies just say well they are right and do not even challenge.
They just say that is the law, laws and made to help those in power.
Not to help the majority.
Democracy means, power to the few that can a fort pay for there laws.
Communist means, power the few on top.
This are just names, this is to create the illusion of your belonging to something.
A republican or democrat, conservator or liberal, christian, Muslim, and on & on.
It all bull shit, this all the same game,.
The game of thrones.
And most of you are just zombies being played for fools, just look at history.
You can not have wars with out money, so who sponsor those wars.
For what purpose, oil, gold, land, spices, mineral, commerce.
In the name of god and country the biggest atrocities have been done.
Just to please a few power hungry and egotistical basters.
[Netflix] runs on Linux, OS X, Windows, and Chrome OS
Is this Linux, or just X11/Linux/x86? I guess DRM stops people who want to use Netflix from building a media center out of a Raspberry Pi.
Does the Android version work on devices without Google Play Services? Its presence on Amazon Appstore implies yes, but one thing on that page worries me: "Netflix playback is supported on Android 2.2, 2.3, 3.x and 4.x devices." Is Android 5.x "Lollipop" incompatible with Netflix, or is that notice just out of date?