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.

Comments

Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Unknown Lamer]

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.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how supporting playback hurts anyone. If you don't like DRM simply don't play or subscribe to content that uses it. Don't force your ideology on others.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Because everyone who uses it is legitimizing it and sending the message that it's acceptable and the way forward. That hurts everyone.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[DRJlaw]

. 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...

You say that as if it's the only option.

We also recognize that not everybody wants DRM, so we are also offering a separate Firefox download without the CDM enabled by default for those users who would rather not have the CDM downloaded to their browser on install.

I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[buchner.johannes]

Read the blog post, it is actually very reasonable. Better to have a standardised, secure, removable and optionally installed DRM than a mysterious black-box software by a random company.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[PvtVoid]

That's right, because you wouldn't want anybody to be able to watch Netflix on your browser. Somebody might want to use it. I mean, what would be next: users wanting http: support?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[BarbaraHudson]

Does it fix that stupid auto-play of html5 videos?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[mrchaotica]

I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?

Wanting "open culture" to not be destroyed by those who promote "closed culture" instead is not a contradiction.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[R.Mo_Robert]

I think you meant Digital Restrictions Management. ... At least there's still the iceweasel fork that doesn't come with this [...].

Or, you know, an actual build of Firefox from Mozilla that also doesn't come with it, as the article pointed out...

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[LordLimecat]

So you want complete freedom of expression as long as others agree with your vision.

Got it.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[serviscope_minor]

Better to have a standardised, secure,

Except it's neither standardised nor secure. All the DRM interface is is a standard interface to a proprietary, non standard closed source module.

mysterious black-box software by a random company

That's EXACTLY what it is. The DRM interface is just an interdace to a mysterious black-box software module from a random company.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[slashmydots]

So...you're a big fan of Silverlight then?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[WheezyJoe]

Firefox can also come without that "shit". From the article:

Mozilla also announced the launch of a separate Firefox download that won’t automatically install Adobe’s technology for playing back DRM-wrapped content in the browser.

As stated in TFA, the Mozilla foundation had to choose whether to support DRM in its own code according to HTML standards, or else accept that most users will resort to awful buggy plugins like Flash or simply switch to Chrome, Safari, or Edge to get the content they want so bad. I, myself, prefer Firefox not become a marginalized has-been project with single-digit adoption.

Choose your poison. There's a silver lining in DRM over browser: it encourages more content over Internet as opposed to cable TV, encouraging more people to dump their overpriced cable subscriptions and have a stake in the net-neutrality war.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[jellomizer]

Yea, all those Netflix users, are just such a small user base, that they add no legitimacy to DRM at all.
Unlike all those GNU fans who, who seem to complain the fact that Firefox actually needs a VGA display to work.

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[TheCarp]

You will die off anyway, at least maybe you could do it with some dignity. Frankly, the inability to watch junk is no real loss. They should be clamoring to keep people on the teat, because after a few years of not watching that crap, I don't really miss it.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[phorm]

"It's a sad day for Mozilla, the w3c, the web as a whole, and open culture"

Yes, it's a sad day when a vendor offers a CHOICE for a plugin which adds much-requested functionality to their product. Heaven fucking forbid.
There are two reasons I generally still even both to keep windows around, one is Netflix (which become a non-issue when Chrome started to work for it on 'nix), and the other is various games (also starting to change with Steam pushing Linux/GL).

Don't want it, don't use it. There are reasons to be open, but frankly I can see some valid reasons for not being thus. Sometimes FOSS zealots sound very similar to the "well, I've got nothing to hide" types when it comes to discussing surveillance.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Because everyone who uses it is legitimizing it and sending the message that it's acceptable and the way forward.

For a rental service like Netflix it is perfectly fine. Aim your guns at Steam, they're the ones that charge you full purchase price for software that will fail when they go out of business. You lot got all upset at DRM back when it was used exclusively for 'permanent' purchases, you forgot to re-evaluate that for rentals.
 

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Holi]

Don't support it then. Personally I feel there is space enough for both open and closed systems. (PS your NEVER going to get Netflix or any other legal streaming service without DRM, the studios have been very adamant about not giving their stuff away)

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[GameboyRMH]

Good, let them think that, maybe they won't notice that all their DRMed goodies are available DRM-free on torrent sites!

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Holi]

Why is their not room for both the open and closed cultures?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Holi]

DRM is encryption, so you don't want us to have encryption?

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Unknown Lamer]

If all of us good programmers refuse to participate in the DRM culture, then it will die from a lack of anyone with the skill required to work on it. If everyone on the street refused to accept DRM, market forces would have to change. It worked for music (but seems to be coming back with Spotify and the RIAA's amazing nearly billion dollar judgment against the only competitor...).

This is the last grasp for profit and power by a dying industry. They should just have the decency to go ahead and die.

In the mean time, the pirate bay exists.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[DRJlaw]

The point is that we don't want anyone to _have_ to use DRM.

The user does not _have_ to use DRM. The user is free to download versions of Firefox that implement the capability or not.

DRM is not a capability in the traditional sense. It's not a way for your software to do something. It's a way to prevent the user from using the software as they please, as directed by the content provider.

It certainly is a capability. It's a capability for the user who happens to be a content provider. It's a capability for users who believe that the content provider's directions are permissible. It's merely not a capability for a "once it has been created it immediately becomes mine for any purpose" user. All three stereotypes also run along a spectrum... content providers and users alike may believe that DRM associated with a subscription is fine, but not DRM that locks content to a single, specific hardware device.

You don't want anyone to be _able_ to use DRM through Firefox, whether as a producer or consumer. That's an ends-justify-the-means approach to open culture, not an "open" method of lobbying for "open culture" as a valuable norm. That's also an absolutist view since DRM would be required to impose any restriction, not simply the extreme restrictions that would offend the typical user.

Open culture cannot be said to be "open" if it cannot countenance pragmatists.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Unknown Lamer]

I like Silverlight in that it sucks and makes DRM hard to use, which helps hasten the demise of digital restrictions management by pissing off users and causing the bastards pushing it to lose revenue. Free Software based companies have to resist -- who else will? We've taken over the entire computing world, and now we should use our power for good by refusing to support DRM or anti-features of any kind. If Linux doesn't support RestrictedBoot for example, Dell couldn't sell any servers with it enabled.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[dissy]

I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?

Wanting "open culture" to not be destroyed by those who promote "closed culture" instead is not a contradiction.

In this case, yes it is.

If you are attempting to argue that the very existence of "closed culture" is what is destroying (incorrect tense included) "open culture" - well you are about 50 years late to that lost battle.
Under that definition open culture was destroyed long long ago with zero hope of ever existing again.

If you are not arguing that point, then you are either contradicting yourself at best, or lying/trolling at worse.

Being an additional (optional at that) feature you don't have to use, I don't understand why you would invest a non-zero amount of work in changing from one DRM-capable browser to another DRM-capable browser only to not use the DRM features, when you could instead invest exactly zero work and not use the feature at all.

If you are not capable of resisting the urge to type "netflix" into your browser, your problem isn't the web browser you are using, but is much deeper in your mental abilities.

If you actually are capable of not typing "netflix" into your browser, then this new feature will go unused and thus it won't effect you what so ever by being there.

I have to seriously question your motives and intent here since it seems you are only trying to push your personal preferences onto the rest of us despite our personal preferences.
If such behavior is OK by you, then by the same logic you shouldn't care that we are forcing our personal preferences onto you, no?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Anonymous Coward]

YOUR data??? Since when watching a movie on a rental service like Netflix makes the movie yours?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Guspaz]

Don't like it, don't use it. There's a version of Mozilla available without the plugin. Your beliefs should not infringe on my ability to enjoy the content I want.

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Guspaz]

Or maybe the small number of idealistic programmers will refuse to participate in the DRM culture, resulting in them being isolated while the rest of the world moves on without them.

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[TheCarp]

yup, 93% sure you are going to die, whether you think the people who make the rules give a shit about you or not (hint: they don't)

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Guspaz]

You don't want me to have to use DRM, so you're going to block me from watching the content that I want? Who exactly is the one placing the restrictions here? The media companies who give you the option of watching DRM'd content, or people like yourself who want to remove any choice in the matter?

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[poetmatt]

Big Media has never won. They were late to the game and cannot reverse history. They literally cannot win. Facts and history are not on their side, and this is no different.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Crimey McBiggles]

At least Steam rides its own platform rather than demanding the introduction of proprietary extensions into a tool meant to browse the open web. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Netflix subscriber and I'd like to get my content easily, but at some point I have to wonder why they don't develop their own desktop apps to support the client side.

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[shemyazaz]

Gonna play devil's advocate here: Why should streaming media users give a crap about DRM? Especially if it allowed services to relax a bit about caching, or device restrictions.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[PvtVoid]

Unlike all those GNU fans who, who seem to complain the fact that Firefox actually needs a VGA display to work.

I for one can't wait until Lynx includes an ASCII-art Netflix plugin. Pretty please?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Kjella]

Of course the usual way has just been to use Flash, Java, Silverlight or some other NPAPI plug-in to provide the DRM. That API is 20 years old from Netscape Navigator 2.0 and honestly nobody likes it much. Microsoft has always pushed ActiveX for IE, Chrome prefers their PPAPI they launched 6 years ago and Firefox calls plug-ins a legacy technology. Many mobile browsers don't support traditional plug-ins of any kind. But it's not going to go away as long as it's the only way to play DRM'd content under Firefox.

So it's a compromise, you get the EME which is going to be a far more limited API isolated in a security sandbox to decrypt DRM'd video and audio streams and with that Firefox hopes to deprecate NPAPI and proprietary plugins for everything else. No flash, no java, no silverlight or anything like that just HTML/CSS/Javascript (open source) + EME (sandbox + closed source). It's just that it has never been in Mozilla's nature to compromise when there's overwhelming evidence they can't win, they'd rather stick by their guns and lose.

According to StatCounter, they had 32% marketshare in November 2009, now they're down to 17%. If you add in mobile where they have nearly no presence they're now fourth after Safari and IE. They're not going to achieve much of anything by pushing their remaining users away from them, it's the curse of populism. To actually be in a position to change anything, you must have the support of enough people to enact change. And in this particular case, I don't think they'll get many to join them in a boycott of Netflix and other DRM-using services.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

YOUR data??? Since when watching a movie on a rental service like Netflix makes the movie yours?

I think he's confusing Netflix for iTunes. If Apple goes bye bye the movie/TV purchases you made go kaputski. He's right about that.

What he's wrong about, and what you're right about, is that in Netflix's case DRM is perfectly acceptable since the key problem with DRM is it makes access to data temporary.

Thanks to Netflix, Amazon, and even iTunes, this whole discussion got a lot more complicated.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[orasio]

I don't want the web to support encryption against users by third parties.
Once that is readily available, and accepted by users (read: today), the freedom of users is endangered.
You can read a deeper analysis of the consequences of such a situation http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
When I first read that, it seemed a bit stupid that people would let their freedom go so easily, but now it's closer to real. The implications of DRM are way beyond video, the problem is that once DRM is standard and everywhere, restricting the flow of information becomes a lot more convenient.
The web was, for a few years, like the internet itself, it routed around censorship. Right now, everything is heading the other way. It's just sad, looks like we are going to keep loosing freedom.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[gman003]

Steam itself doesn't universally apply DRM - a large number of games on Steam don't have DRM at all, you can just copy the files to wherever you want and run them.

They do offer their own DRM, which is about as non-intrusive as you can get while still being DRM, and they allow publishers to include their own DRM as long as it is noted on the store page. You can be mad about games using DRM, but Valve isn't the one to be angry at.

PS: Valve's talked about issuing a patch to disable the DRM if they ever go out of business. Realistically that probably won't happen (too many licensing problems), but the DRM is trivially bypassed as long as you have the game downloaded already, so they really can't stop it.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Damarkus13]

You're right. By subscribing to Netflix I am legitimizing their use of DRM. Personally, I feel that $8/month for unlimited movie watching, with the restriction that I must be online to do so, is completely acceptable.

There are uses of DRM that I find unacceptable (I won't "buy" a movie from Google Play or iTunes) but Netflix isn't one of them.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Dputiger]

"The point is that we don't want anyone to _have_ to use DRM. Making it available is one more step in that direction.

DRM is not a capability in the traditional sense. It's not a way for your software to do something. It's a way to prevent the user from using the software as they please, as directed by the content provider. That's a restriction, not a capability."

I would also prefer not to have to use DRM. Unfortunately, DRM exists and prevents me from watching the content I want to watch. Therefore, I will use DRM. Why? Because I'd rather pay $8 for an honest license than pirate for the rest of my life. Because streaming to multiple devices is simpler than managing a central file repository of content.

I'm glad Firefox w/o DRM exists. I'm glad other browser forks exist. I choose to use the version with this capability embedded because it *serves my needs.* If you want to take that away from me, then you aren't promoting any kind of live-and-let-live philosophy -- you've flipped over into a position every bit as tyrannical as the one the copyright industry holds. You want me to abandon content consumption for principle. You would sooner there was no legal content than allow legal consumption w/ DRM attached.

You're absolutely allowed to feel and think and advocate for such positions, but you don't get to tell everybody who thinks differently that they don't count.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[jopsen]

I think you meant Digital Restrictions Management. It's a sad day for Mozilla, the w3c, the web as a whole, and open culture.

So just to be clear, Mozilla supplies a sandbox that and downloads a decoder from adobe (I think). This is a LOT safer than flash, java plugins or silverlight.
DRM sucks no doubt, but at least it's now isolated... In a sandbox that is open source, not a sandbox created by adobe.

Long term, I think DRM will die on it's own, like it did in the music industry. But I don't see Mozilla having the capital to change the market, not when Google, Apple and Microsoft all embrace DRM. Honestly I would rather see Mozilla around to fight another day, because the I don't think the war on DRM is over.
That said, at least this is better, safer and less intrusive than current alternatives (flash, silverlight and various other plugins).

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You can be mad about games using DRM, but Valve isn't the one to be angry at.... PS: Valve's talked about issuing a patch to disable the DRM if they ever go out of business.

Heh. So don't be angry at Valve, but they do have the key to disable the DRM...

Okay I'm just teasing you. But I do think you're right about this:

Realistically that probably won't happen (too many licensing problems)...

Until I Valve presents one of their standard contracts with the companies that provide these games with explicit terms that say they can disable the DRM in the event of going out of business, I have no reason to believe *any* of my Steam games will work after Valve goes under. I do get your point about the varying forms of DRM on Steam games, but you are talking to somebody who had a very difficult time playing certain games on Steam during a period where internet access was incredibly flakey. Despite being in off-line mode, I *still* had to battle with activations on a weekly basis. I don't know which games on Steam do or don't have restrictive DRM, it's been a while since I've looked but I don't recall them being terribly up-front about it.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Dagger2]

Don't want it, don't use it

Except that's not really a choice when DRM is involved, is it? The entire point of DRM is to take that choice away from you.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[spire3661]

Closed culture often tries to destroy open culture. SCO/Microsoft vs Linux is a good example.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[DarkOx]

So were the record companies. Now amazon sells mp3 files without DRM.

DVD ripping is childs play, yet they still release their stuff on that format.

Grandparent is correct eventually they will give up, probably because the competition will be beat them. The competition being indie (which lets face it the CGI that talented folks can do in their basement now is better than what the studios did in the 90s.) and their own older unencumbered stuff, and again there is so so so much of that there really is no need to watch a 'new' movie in our own life times.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[tepples]

I think the idea is to put pressure on the media companies to choose not to use digital restrictions management In the first place.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[tlhIngan]

At least Steam rides its own platform rather than demanding the introduction of proprietary extensions into a tool meant to browse the open web. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Netflix subscriber and I'd like to get my content easily, but at some point I have to wonder why they don't develop their own desktop apps to support the client side.

Then you get people complaining they should be using the browser instead of their own apps which only work on Windows and OS X, versus a web app which works on Linux as well.

You already get people complaining on mobile that "apps" should go away and be "web pages" instead, and now you're advocating the reverse - that what WAS web pages will now be apps.

Well geez, what happens is you go to Netflix, select your movie, and then it launches the Netflix app, like what iTunes does now. So the web becomes just a portal for apps and to do anything requires installing bunches of apps.

Want to download music? Here it is on iTunes, now install the iTunes app to purchase and download. Want to download movies? Well we have the iTunes app, the Google Play app, the Xbox app, ... just a portal for apps.

I mean, on Windows 8, Netflix has an app. I don't think they have one for OS X, but who knows.

Still, if Netflix did restrict their service to apps, you'll find a bunch of Linux users suddenly complaining that it doesn't work anymore. And probably a bunch of people whose friends or children upgraded them to Linux and are now unable to enjoy their Netflix.

There is no good solution. Mozilla's solution is probably the best - sure it's "unpure" and "not ideal", but it's all about compromise and realizing that users will do what they want to do. If Netflix doesn't work on Firefox, no amount of "DRM is bad" philosophy will let them watch movies. They'll take the path of least resistance, Google 'how to get Netflix to work on firefox" and see the solution is "Install Chrome" or "Use IE" or "Use Safari".

It's all about picking your battles. No point in winning the battle by excluding DRM only to lose the war by being marginalized.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Molt]

Here's at least one example of a piece of software which can be purchased, installed, and launched via Steam which then doesn't have the Steam DRM applied Art Rage.

Now that's just one example, and one where they do apply non-Steam CD Key checks, but there are a decent number of games which just work without the Steam client service running and so can't be using the Steam DRM.

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Bengie]

1) The data catalog is so big that you need a huge cache to be anywhere useful. Netflix uses a 100TB cache, and they pin the cache because the there is so much random access, that it is constantly evicting records, only to reload them later. Random access is very high. Because of this issue, whatever "caching" device you use, it would just be constantly churning unless it understood the traffic pattern, which is random. This would just hurt everyone.

2) Netflix is going all HTTPS soon, good luck caching.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Bengie]

Steam DRM is optional. Several games on Steam do not have any DRM at all. It is entirely up to the one selling the game to decide.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Lord Apathy]

I would rather have this than siverlight. Silverlight just blow mule ass, it gives the mule a rusty trombone. (look it up).

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Lord Apathy]

Except that's not really a choice when DRM is involved, is it?

Sure it's a choice. Don't want to use the DRM then don't watch. See, choice. If you chose not to watch then if enough people feel the same way, then they will stop watching, and netflix will have to change away from drm. On the other hand most will simply accept this as a acceptable deal and chose to watch. Then you get to sit in your corner and rock yourself knowing you held on to your principles.

You have a choice. To watch netflix movies, or not too. It's up to you.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Guspaz]

The pressure applied by this sort of niche is going to be negligible. For example, Steve Jobs bitching about DRM to the music companies probably did more to combat DRM than any number of anti-DRM activists did.

In the mean time, the activists would be applying pressure on the companies at the expense of anybody who disagrees with them, such as myself. I suspect most people are like me: we don't think DRM is something that we would actively want, but we don't really care if it's there if it stays out of the way. Netflix' DRM tends to stay out of the way.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's at least one example of a piece of software which can be purchased, installed, and launched via Steam which then doesn't have the Steam DRM

Do you understand that if it has to be "launched via Steam," then Steam acts as DRM mechanism?

Yes? Yes?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[nightsky30]

I for one welcome our DRM trojan horse malware overloards!

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[TubeSteak]

So you want complete freedom of expression as long as others agree with your vision.

There's no such thing as complete freedom of expression.
We naturally put limits on expression to prevent assholes from taking advantage and causing us all grief.

Some people see DRM as part of the assholes who would cause us grief.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[BootNinja]

netflix hasn't worked on linux in firefox since they released the silverlight plugin. it might start doing so now that there is an html5 pathway, but mono was not able to incorporate the silverlight drm which would allow netflix to work over linux,

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Closed culture often tries to destroy open culture. SCO/Microsoft vs Linux is a good example.

That's not a very good example since Linux is still here.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[hairyfeet]

Gaben has made it clear on several occasions that if valve was to ever go under (and since he's made it clear he'll not go public with the company and they've made double revenue year after year? Not bloody likely) he will issue a patch that will disable calling home on Steam and all Valve games so it really won't matter WTF the other companies think as Steam will just be in offline mode forever.

If you buy a game that uses something other than Steam? That is between you and the third party, I tend to look at those like plague blankets myself, but there won't be a damned thing the third parties will be able to do if he shuts off the DRM to HIS platform, its his, he owns it, he can pull the plug if he so chooses.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[steelfood]

Digital Restrictions Management

DRM should generally be rebranded with this backronym. If only we could convince the media to begin adopting it. Public sentiment would be far less neutral if people knew it for what it really was.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

(and since he's made it clear he'll not go public with the company and they've made double revenue year after year? Not bloody likely)

Unlikely things happen all the time, especially in the video games industry.

...he will issue a patch that will disable calling home on Steam and all Valve games so it really won't matter WTF the other companies think as Steam will just be in offline mode forever.

Yes, the guy who wants to sell you something tells you what you want to hear. I want to see a contract.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Darinbob]

DRM is more than just encryption. Otherwise they wouldn't have invented new acronyms. DRM is a means to ensure that you can only decrypt under certain conditions; only in approved locations, only at approved times, only if content has not been revoked, only if used on approved equipment, only with permission from the mother ship, etc.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Black LED]

You are incredibly naive if you believe that.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[r1348]

Let's also add: DRM support is 32bit Windows only, because HTML5 was supposed to be a multi-platform standard that would free us from browser plugins, exept when it didn't.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Jane Q. Public]

What he's wrong about, and what you're right about, is that in Netflix's case DRM is perfectly acceptable since the key problem with DRM is it makes access to data temporary.

But that doesn't automatically make it okay.

The ruling SCOTUS made in the "Betamax decision" had solid reasoning behind it. It is precisely that "temporariness" that people have legitimate reasons for wanting to bypass.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[hairyfeet]

And you and Mr "I like to lick butts!" have ZERO fucking understanding of human beings if you think he would EVAR do anything different....why? Because His fans worship him as a fucking God that's why!

They make artwork of him similar to saints, they even "pray to Gaben" when faced with games that have a random number generator element, if the RNG goes your way they say "Praise Gaben!" and you HONESTLY believe he is gonna give up being the fucking POPE of gaming for money? When he ALREADY has so much that with his current lifestyle he'd have to live to be 10,000 years old to just go through what he has this minute? Not a fricking chance, money is nice, but being worshiped and treated like a rockstar when you are this fat nerd? That is priceless.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Lehk228]

>steam

>full price

toppest kek

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So the DRM will go away when Steam goes under because your worship of Gaben is more powerful than contracts and lawyers. Got it.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[nazsco]

don't drag the discussion to this point. if someone wants to rent a movie or a game so be it.

now, what we are taking here is Mozilla using the time we all contributed coding, documenting, promoting the browser to serve adobe's purpose and distribute a security/privacy hole to millions of people that do not plan to risk their freedom just to rent a movie ever!

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Lehk228]

we're talking about netflix here.

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[spongman]

The alternative is that nobody gets to watch paid content on the web - it's tv or nothing. Is that progress?

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Black LED]

That isn't anything I am willing to gamble my money on.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Dagger2]

Okay, fair enough: if I want to watch something on Netflix, I have a choice between "watch it with exactly the software they dictate" and "fuck off". I suppose you can technically call that a choice, even though one of the options doesn't actually involve watching the thing.

But where's my choice of "watch it with the software I want to use"? Right, it's gone, because of the DRM.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Guspaz]

It's not a restriction to need a certain browser. To use their service, I'll use the appropriate software. You can't say that Netflix isn't supported on a platform just because every single piece of software on that platform isn't capable of connecting.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[phorm]

"But where's my choice of "watch it with the software I want to use"? Right, it's gone, because of the DRM."

There are plenty of situations where there's not much choice and it has little to do with DRM. In this case, you have *MORE* choice than before (and you're STILL bitching about it, I might add).

Your choice before was: Watch Netflix on a non-Linux OS (including: Windows, Mac, later Android/iDevices). Due to this change, you now have the ADDITIONAL choice to watch it on Linux, which is something a lot of us have been wanting for quite some time. You ALSO have the choice to do things EXACTLY as before, by NOT USING the f**king plugin.

So no choice is gone, because frankly it was never there. You now have additional choices. You also have the choice to go out and buy the bloody DVD and watch it that way. If you want to bitch about DRM then have a look at Blu-Ray which we still can't watch properly on Linux.

This sort of crap is why Linux users look bad, because even when we get something there's always somebody who has to piss and moan about it, and you make us all look like a bunch of whiners. It's their service, and unlike a physical owned medium they do have rights to determine how that service is access. Don't like it, don't use it. But stop using "choice" as a reason to bitch about it when you're actually being given additional options you NEVER HAD before.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[gman003]

Do you understand the difference between "has to be" and "can be"?

Steam is in charge of downloading and installing the game. After that, you can launch it directly.

If, and only if, the game was coded to additionally use Steam's DRM features, it will then check that Steam is running and attempt to authenticate (which can be as simple as the local Steam instance having a cached authentication).

If it doesn't use Steam's DRM, it will just run as a regular old executable. Steam does not mandate ANY DRM, it only mandates that if you use non-Steam DRM, you have to make a note of it on your store page.

I have dozens of games bought and downloaded on Steam that do not touch Steam's DRM. I've actually copied some of them over to other computers and had it still work without Steam even being installed.

Re: Typo: Digital Rights Management

[poetmatt]

This is hilariously incorrect. Money *works* short term, it doesn't work long term.

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[Dagger2]

Alright, so what I meant to say was "it isn't there", rather than "it's gone" -- my bad for insufficiently nitpicking my own word choice. But either way, it's not on the table, and we're back to the choice-that-isn't-much-of-a-choice of "do exactly what we say" vs "fuck off".

Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

A promise made by a man trying to sell you something is not a fact. Show me one of the contracts they made from a notable game being sold on their service with a clause spelling this out and I'll beleive it. Until then ... you just gullible.

Re:Alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Pale Moon: https://www.palemoon.org/

Re:i hates drm but

[jandrese]

Isn't that what Chrome (not Chromium) is for? It's the entire reason I have it installed on my laptop.

Re:Alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article they are already providing that option.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-rights-management-and-firefox/

Re:Repeat after me

[gameboyhippo]

We're talking about Firefox and not Chrome.

Disableable

[DrYak]

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.

Re:Disableable

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to go as far as Iceweasel.

Yes, you do, to show that you don't want that capability in your web browser. I get that everybody thinks Netflix are the good guys because they free people from the evil cable companies, but they aren't. They are just the next iteration of media companies who try to shove proprietary shit down your throat. Don't let them.

Re:Disableable

[lister king of smeg]

You don't need to go as far as Iceweasel.

Yes, you do, to show that you don't want that capability in your web browser. I get that everybody thinks Netflix are the good guys because they free people from the evil cable companies, but they aren't. They are just the next iteration of media companies who try to shove proprietary shit down your throat. Don't let them.

I look at it as a reasonable compromise, I get the content i want on my otherwise open source stack (firefox mate gnu linux) they get their ineffectual blob to protect their 'precious' content that I can containerize. While I don't like their blob I put up with it because I want to watch their content more.

Re:Disableable

[Endymion]

You are trading your future freedom for a few movies. Worse, you could get those movies in other ways, so you're really trading your future freedom for slightly more convenient access to movies. When DRM is even more entrenched in the future, be sure to remember that you made this trade and helped that DRM become established.

Re:Disableable

[Trogre]

How is this any different from what has previously been going on with the evil NetFlix DRM being implemented in more general-purpose plugins such as Flash and Silverlight?

The Mozilla Foundation's choice was to either enable it or be "that browser that doesn't work properly with NetFlix".

Don't blame Firefox for this course of action. Blame NetFlix or, ultimatey, the content studios.

Don't like it? You'd be better off boycotting NetFlix than Firefox.

Re:Disableable

[lister king of smeg]

You are trading your future freedom for a few movies. Worse, you could get those movies in other ways, so you're really trading your future freedom for slightly more convenient access to movies.

What legal way is there of getting DRM free movies is there?
DVD easily broken DRM but still illegal to crack.
Bluray slightly more annoying but breakable DRM again illegal to crack.
Hulu, Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, all have DRM that is illegal to crack.
Cable, and Dish, have DRM yet again illegal to crack.
Torrents copyright infringement, illegal.
Rouge streaming sites legal grey area probably illegal and occasionally has DRM and often filed with malware attack ads.

What ligament legal way is there of getting DRM free movies and shows.

Re:Disableable

[jabuzz]

I can record stuff broadcast from Freeview or Freesat in the U.K. No DRM on that :-)

Re:Disableable

[BootNinja]

you're making a false equivalency. You seem to be under the misapprehension that netflix is currently available unencumbered with DRM. This is not the case. Netflix currently utilizes drm through microsoft's silverlight plugin on firefox. All this is doing is switching drm technologies, which will assist them in deprecating NPAPI. It is not adding DRM to a previously unencumbered distribution channel. It seems silly to be this up in arms over what really amounts to nothing more than a technology shift.

Re:Disableable

[Endymion]

What ligament legal way is there of getting DRM free movies and shows.

Excluding the occasional independent publisher that caters to that market, there isn't any. That's the point: in a society based on capitalism, you have to deny them revenue if you want a business to change. As long as these publishers know that you are willing to do anything to get their product - including risking legal and civil consequences by turning to piracy - then they know they can get away with demanding anything they want.

Right now, there are many publishers demanding that you install rootkits and backdoors ("DRM") if you want access to their products. Technology is being used to confuse the situation so you don't notice that they are trying to reverse the first-sale doctrine and the concept of ownership in general. The end game is that you never own anything while getting nickel-and-dimed every time you press "play", while the people that own copyright (NOT the creators) get rich. If we let it happen completely, it will effectively be a return to feudalism, with the ownership class and everybody else who pays for it.

Many people in this thread and the developers at Mozilla are choosing to let this future happen. Some of us are saying that we shouldn't let Hollywood get away with rewriting the way ownership works. We are trying to point out that publishers are trying to scam/con you when they offer to give you more convenient access to movies in exchange for your first-sale right to own your copy of a creative work and installing their badly written backdoors (at best) or explicitly malicious rootkits (e.g. Sony XCP).

It would have been nicer if we had stopped this problem earlier, but people like you decided toi give the publishers money and expand their popularity with piracy. Fixing it now will unfortunately require sacrifice in the form of not using their products. If we let EME gain a foothold in the web, fighting this problem in the future might require doing without certain websites as well. If you think the restrictions on the current plugin are going to prevent that, consider that those restrictions just went from "no DRM allowed" to "some DRM for movies is allowed". Is it really that big of an extrapolation to suggest that other industries - such as those currently feeling left out, like the book publishing industry - will force a change to "slightly stronger DRM for movies and text (books) is allowed"?

So no, there is no legal way to get most movies DRM free. Are you going to keep accepting the larger and larger demands of the publishers, or are you finally going to tell them "no, that cost is too high"?

How does it work ?

[itzly]

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 ?

Re:How does it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 to this along with the fact that Firefox is open source so how does it protect or hide the key needed to decrypt the content along with where the decrypted content is temporarily stored?

Re:How does it work ?

[slashmydots]

FYI, you can screenshot netflix in Windows right now with silverlight. So technically a screen recorder on a sufficiently fast system could record "netflix exclusive titles" and upload them elsewhere.

Re:How does it work ?

[itzly]

I think that's the point of having the DRM module closed source and undocumented.

That's not much of a deterrent, if the interface is documented, and you can feed an encrypted stream in, and clear stream comes out.

Re:How does it work ?

[byuu]

I don't know the answer, but it would be quite easy for Firefox+DRM to only be available in the released binaries, and the source code you download to only be the Firefox-DRM portion. Much like Chromium versus Chrome.

Re:How does it work ?

[jopsen]

Afaik it downloads a binary decode from adobe (I think it is) and runs it in a sandbox managed by Firefox. It's a LOT better and safer than flash...

Re:How does it work ?

[Dagger2]

The EME plugin could transfer video frames to the monitor over HTTPS. That way you can't sniff the uncompressed frames, and you can't MITM the connection unless the plugin is stupid enough to not check the certs it sees. The browser, OS and even the GPU are all just dumb pipes to get the uncompressed-then-reencrypted stream to the monitor.

(Obviously it'll use TLS or some custom scheme rather than HTTPS, and I'm not even sure if this "encrypted path right to the monitor" is actually a thing at the moment. But this is the basic idea of how it could work.)

Re:How does it work ?

[fafalone]

I download Netflix-exclusive content already despite having a subscription (I don't believe it's 'piracy' since I pay for that and a cable TV subscription), because it's good enough I'll want to watch it again some day when it might no longer be available, and watch it when I'm not online and on another device. Not sure how how the pirates get the stream, but it's full 1080p at 2-5GB/episode. There's always the hardcore options.. although hard to get in the US, there's certain cards from china that will strip the encryption from HDMI and deliver the stream to your computer. It takes serious hardware to work with the result, but right now anything playable over an HDMI connection can be pirated thanks to that last ditch fallback.

separate plugin

[DrYak]

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.

completely external

[DrYak]

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).

Re:i hates drm but

[Chromium_One]

YMMV by distro, but you can get Chrome's widevine plugin repackaged to work with Chromium. Netflix works just fine that way with recent-ish versions. Also worth noting that Pepperflash can also be repackaged that way. Both plugins are available on at least Slack (via Alien's slackbuilds) and 'buntu.

it's stupid DRM, not real encryption

[DrYak]

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).

Re:non open source firefox?

[LordLimecat]

I think what we have is clear examples of people who read the article and those who did not.

CDM on Chromium

[DrYak]

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.

Re:CDM on Chromium

[Holi]

Oh no, now you've tainted Linux. It's ruined by teh 3vil that is DRM. I guess it's HURD's time now.

dreams over, the manifesto is dead.

[nimbius]

for those who havent kept pace with them, Mozilla jumped the shark years ago. First it was search engine preference for google, then bing, then actual targeted fucking advertisement in the tiles window. The browser, by default, sends all your page calls to google under the auspices of reportable attack page detection. Beguilingly Mozilla started including a video chat system in the browser, while users and devs alike were shunned and ignored as they complained about the ever increasing ram and disk footprint. The mozilla manifesto is effectively fucking worthless...

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.

Re:dreams over, the manifesto is dead.

[Holi]

I for one have trouble with the people who want encryption for themselves but demand others don't use it. DRM = encryption. If you get your PGP, then they get their DRM.

Re:dreams over, the manifesto is dead.

[MatthiasF]

Two sides to the coin, the majority of the Internet exists because there is money to be made from the content being shared.

If a particular type of content cannot be monetized, then it will not exist on the Internet because the Internet is not "free" as in costs $0.

Sometimes I think people equate freedom with the ability to take from others as much as they want and not the true meaning that you have all options available to you and offered equally to all.

Re:dreams over, the manifesto is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

who pays you to post comments on slashdot?

Re:dreams over, the manifesto is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit and false equivalence. PGP assumes hostile third parties to the conversation, while DRM assumes the recipient of the data is hostile. Quite a profound difference.

Re:dreams over, the manifesto is dead.

[MobyDisk]

DRM = encryption + key obfuscation.

If DRM was merely encryption that would be great. Then we could save the encrypted streams to our hard disk, then play them while on vacation. Or we could copy those encrypted streams for time shifting. We could decrypt them, then re-encode them into another format for playing on another device. Or take fair-use protected clips from them.

The goal of DRM is to prevent the the end-user from doing the things listed above. But encryption alone isn't enough to do that. You need a way to give the key to the user, but obfuscate the key so that they can only use it limited circumstances. It's infuriating to the user.

Re:dreams over, the manifesto is dead.

[BitZtream]

not when you bundle digital restrictions management with your browser and only offer the truly open one as an 'option'

Bullshit argument. You're more than welcome to not use the plugin and not use DRM'd content. At no point do you EVER get the right to tell someone else how they have to make things available to you. You're selfish arrogant ass doesn't get to demand other people do things your we because ... well because otherwise you'll throw a tantrum.

Its not open ... when you start restricting people can do ... but you want your browser to restrict people from using a plugin standard they want to use.

Asshole.

quit enabling googles malware system, and stop enabling targeted ads by default.

More people want that turned on than want it turned off. You are simply the minority. Deal with it. Maybe even consider the fact that because a lot of people who understand whats going on here don't think its pure evil that MAYBE, just fucking MAYBE you're an ignorant douche with the problem, not every one else.

thats the direct antithesis of DRM. same goes for point 06 on interoperability.

No, it doesn't, on either point. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get any right to tell me how I do something. You don't like the color blue, so in order for my artwork to be open and interoperable ... it can't have the color blue in it ...

Thats your argument here. You don't like it ... so screw the fact that we're talking about a PUBLISHED STANDARD FOR INTEROPERABILITY ... its not ... because you said so ...

but DRM does not.

Neither does currency, but you wouldn't be able to use the Internet or even have this conversation without it. You don't have to use DRM or buy artwork with the color blue in it, and very few people give a flying fuck that you don't do it. Actually, outside of this website I can safely assume no one gives a fuck what you do. Someone else's hard work is theirs to do with what they want. It is NOT a public resource. It is NOT a right. Unless you intend to argue that everything you do on the Internet is a public resource, including any banking done by you directly or indirectly ... in which case, give me your bank account and CC numbers and lets get straight the point of the public resource that was formally known as your bank account.

I dont remember hearing a goddamn thing about you adding DRM or targeted ads before you just decided to do it.

Then you're just a moron. This isn't the first time its been mentioned here and on many other tech websites and of course, Google News. So at this point, if you are completely blind sided by this ... well, again, you're the problem.

So lets recap ... you don't like DRM ... so everyone who has anything to do with it is being restrictive and preventing you from doing what YOU want to do ... but its okay for you to prevent them from doing what they want to do (i.e. use DRM) ...

I suggest a dictionary and a quick check of the word:

HYPOCRITE

Then just do as with flash

[DrYak]

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.

Some end users do want video

[DrYak]

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.

Re:Some end users do want video

[Damarkus13]

It seems that the Mozilla Foundation has found a safe and reasonable implementation.

Re:Some end users do want video

[PvtVoid]

Netflix is broken, not the browser. If Netflix insists on using something that cannot be implemented in a safe and reasonable way by the Mozilla Foundation, then it is only fair that Netflix should solve this themselves.

I'm sure they'll get right on that.

Re:Microsoft is killing Firefox.

[NotDrWho]

I love that the MS hatred is so strong on /. that MS is somehow blamed for the bad stuff that MOZILLA does, as if MS went over to Mozilla HQ and forced them to adopt DRM:

"ADOPT THIS DRM OR WE'LL BREAK YOUR FACE, MAN!!"

"Okay, okay, we'll do it! Just stop hurting us!"

"THAT'S RIGHT, BITCH! MICROSOFT 4EVER!!"

Re:Get cracking

[GameboyRMH]

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!

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.

I'm waiting for the pedestrian rights management

[jpellino]

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.

Re:But... Why?

[NotDrWho]

No, no, you're missing some steps:

1) The studios (Fox, Paramount, Sony, etc.) tell Netflix that without DRM, Netflix is going to have its own original series to stream AND THAT'S ALL.
2) Netflix decides it might be wise to include D-R-M unless they want to go B-A-N-K-R-U-P-T.
3) The major browser companies all adopt DRM too, since no one wants to be the one browser that doesn't work with Netflix
4) You, the user, streams movies from your browser.

Re:Does this really affect that many people?

[quantaman]

I don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to watch Netflix. There's a reason they mail so many DVDs.

It's become necessary because of the media size for HD video. Even using BlueRay there simply aren't enough ponies to ship all the disks to carry the content.

Re:Get cracking

[lgw]

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.

Which is exactly how the standard works - except now the plug-in interface is standardized. So much nerdwhine over nothing with the HTML5 DRM stuff. Feel free to grab the "can't watch Netflix" version if it makes you happy. Not needing Silverlight (or Flash, or some other exploit delivery engine) makes me happy.

It *IS* a plugin.

[DrYak]

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.

CDM vs Generic plugin

[DrYak]

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".

Re:Get cracking

[Mr D from 63]

Which is exactly how the standard works - except now the plug-in interface is standardized. So much nerdwhine over nothing with the HTML5 DRM stuff. Feel free to grab the "can't watch Netflix" version if it makes you happy. Not needing Silverlight (or Flash, or some other exploit delivery engine) makes me happy.

That's how I see it. I'll be happy to be able to watch Netflix on my HTPC in the same quality as a streaming device. It seems like we may have more flexibility in how we can get our Netflix. As far as I can tell, and I certainly am no expert, no existing feature or function of Firefox is lost.

Re:Alternative/fork

[Holi]

So you just read the headline. Not even the summary?

CDM is sandboxed

[DrYak]

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.

Re:CDM is sandboxed

[Endymion]

The current implementation is sandbox; we know nothing about how it will be implemented in the future. Have fun when a new version of the plugin requires disabling the sandbox or giving the plugin access to more OS features. When the servers drop support for the old version for vague "security reasons" (or other excuse), good luck telling the people that are now used to getting Netflix that the new version won't be supported. No, the sandbox will be removed and the new version made to work, with the same justification they you short-sighted idiots are using now.

Even better: are you going to go out of your way to block the upgrade when the ebook publishing industry (which already uses a lot of DRM) demands the same browser DRM rights as the movie industry? When Amazon makes the same demands as Netflix, why won't the same justifications work? // non-DRM webpages were nice while they lasted

sandbox

[DrYak]

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)

Re:Alternative/fork

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, that is covered in the 4th sentence of the summary.

Re:Fucking Sellouts

[Holi]

And this is the mindset that will eternally keep Linux from ever having any major inroads on the desktop.

Re:But... Why?

[Holi]

Netflix hardly delivers content DRM free. Why do you think they used Silverlight?

Re:Fucking Sellouts

[itzly]

And this is the mindset that will eternally keep Linux from ever having any major inroads on the desktop.

Fine with me. That makes it an uninteresting target for malware.

Re:Get cracking

[knightghost]

Not needing Silverlight (or Flash, or some other exploit delivery engine) makes me happy.

Flash at least caches, but from what I've seen HTML5 does not. I hate the frequent pauses and low quality resolution from streaming. Caching is the most fundamental and stable fix.

Just DRM on windows???

[Cutting_Crew]

the story headline reads like only DRM is enabled for Windows and not Mac.

Re: Get cracking

[buchanmilne]

Because of the limited scope (doesn't need to be able to open network sockets, access files etc.) the browser can sandbox it more effectively.

Re:But... Why?

[suutar]

When did Netflix start sending DRM-free video? (Except maybe their original serieses.)

What has really changed with here?

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:What has really changed with here?

[tepples]

What has changed is the capability of the binary blob. The blob runs in a sandbox that has no network or file system access. All it can do is decrypt.

Re:But... Why?

[ic3m4n1]

You seemed to have a few too:

5) ????
6) $Profit$

Re:Microsoft is killing Firefox.

[Adriax]

AC is just using his default rage scapegoat.
If this were fox news the post would be "Thanks Obama!"
NBC: "Bush era leftover for us to deal with."
Country music station: "Muslim terrorists!"
3am radio talk show: "Alien Illuminati plot to steal our toe nails!"

Re:Get cracking

[Endymion]

the plug-in interface is standardized

Previously, there was some hesitation to use this crap thanks to this lack of standardization. Now, thanks to this idiotic move by Mozilla this type of DRM will be used, and if you think it only apply to Netflix - or only apply to video - you haven't been paying attention.

Now that it is possible to for businesses to claim that "almost all of our potential customers support DRM", it will be used in many places. Remember the pages that show an image of text instead of just putting the text in the page? Well, get ready for the video equivalent the first time someone gets paranoid because browsers have a save-as feature. Besides, once DRM for one type of content is in place, the other industries will cry "equal access".

All of you who are "ok" with this, or are thinking only of convenience - your selfish view of the world is a big part of why this is happening. You should be fighting this, if you give a damn about having an free an open internet in the future. Unfortunately, you're probably going to mod me down and go back to cheering about how you get to watch movies in your browser, and I hope you enjoy fighting the far more difficult battles in the future, because you didn't stop this crap when it was still small.

Re:Get cracking

[GameboyRMH]

You should have tho grab the "restricts my rights" version if that makes you happy while everyone else gets DRM-free Firefox by default. Mozilla shouldn't be helping to spread DRM by default-installing it for everyone. Not having a DRM plugin installed makes me happy (especially since it could still turn out to be an exploit delivery engine).

Re: Does this really affect that many people?

[Eunuchswear]

Move somewhere civilised. In Champigny sur Marne, a fairly poor suburb of Paris I have a choice between 20Mbit ADSL and 50Mbit cable.

Netflix works great.

On the bright side...

[ckatko]

An open source project has DRM protection?

foo()
// call_drm_bullshit()
bar();

Annndddd done. I'm an elite hacker!

Re:On the bright side...

[itzly]

So where are you doing your decryption ?

Re:disable EME

[Endymion]

Because mozilla decided to promote DRM instead of a free web, we can look forwards to lots of sites (which used to work) displaying a nag screen with a link to download the "proper" version of firefox, specifically because the DRM version is a free download. They will assume everybody has support available, so there is no penalty to using this crap everywhere.

Or have you not been paying attention to how businesses work these days?

When the fight for freedom is hard, there are many potentially useful strategies. Giving up without a fight and simply handing victory to the enemy is not one of them.

Re:Get cracking

[lgw]

I hope you enjoy fighting the far more difficult battles in the future, because you didn't stop this crap when it was still small.

The majority of internet traffic is DRMd video streams - has been for years. A standards committee has no power to tell the vendors what to do; instead their job is to write down what the big vendors are already doing, so that everyone else can interoperate.

Use the right tool for the job, man. If you want non-DRMd video, you're supposed to use a torrent client, not a web browser. Not every tool has to solve every problem, you know - let each be good for its purpose instead.

I posted once but...

[ckatko]

...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."

Re:Get cracking

[KingMotley]

Flash at least crashes

Fixed that for you.

Re:3rd party plugin

[serviscope_minor]

Is there anything that stops someone getting the source and writing a function to simply dump out the decrypted stream? If so, then this is surely completely useless.

If not, how so?

Re:Get cracking

[Endymion]

instead their job is to write down what the big vendors are already doing, so that everyone else can interoperate

We call people who work with the enemy collaborators, which is one of the faster ways to get your former allies to see you as a traitor.

There is a fight for freedom going on here, and many of you are talking about movies. Anybody that things this is hyperbole or "crazy" hasn't been paying attention.

(actually, given that the target audience of this post is nerds that like netflix, I suppose these links would be more appropriate)

EME is not just Netflix DRM

[Scorpinox]

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.

Re:Microsoft is killing Firefox.

[serviscope_minor]

I love that the MS hatred is so strong on /. that

Well, in fairness, MS are still evil so the hatred is well deserved if a little misplaced.

Because big media has captured the government

[tepples]

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.

Re:Microsoft is killing Firefox.

[cjjjer]

Sorry but Mozilla killed Firefox a long time go on their own and needed no input from anyone to do it.

Or just boycott the major movie studios

[tepples]

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.

Re:Or just boycott the major movie studios

[BootNinja]

it was implied that he wishes not to do without, therefore for him, there are only 2 viable options to get the content he wishes to consume.

Re:Or just boycott the major movie studios

[jwhitener]

Or fourth option: movie/tv show owners can wake up to the fact the digital file is worthless, because it can be copied without cost. Instead, start selling the experience around the file. Netflix should charge 8 dollars a month for the ease of use accessing movie and tv content. I don't have to store it locally, it streams instantly, the search works well, etc.... that is value to me.

This already happens with music purchased at places like Amazon. You can download the music encryption free. I should be able to do the same with movies/tv shows. Just plain avi/mkv type files. I

Re:Or just boycott the major movie studios

[tepples]

There are actually three options: use DRM, infringe copyright, or voluntarily do without.

Or fourth option: movie/tv show owners can wake up to the fact the digital file is worthless

I was referring to things that an end user can do. Most lack the billions of dollars needed to dictate terms to the incumbent movie studios. Most lack even the millions of dollars to start an indie movie studio that can produce a desirable feature-length motion picture to sell on GOG.

Wondered what that was

[WillAffleckUW]

Disabled it already

Re:Microsoft is killing Firefox.

[BZ]

The scenario you describe is pretty much how it worked, with Google and Netflix doing most of the forcing, and Microsoft only helping out a little bit.

Re:Microsoft is killing Firefox.

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh

DRM is useless by definition

[DrYak]

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)
"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 ...etc...)

Hack to disable DRM in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[hduff]

You know someone will do it. DRM is just stupid.

If Netflix refuses to make an app for that

[tepples]

Netflix' DRM tends to stay out of the way.

Unless your playback device happens to be unsupported.

Re:If Netflix refuses to make an app for that

[Guspaz]

Then it would be getting in the way. But Netflix supports every device that I own that would even be capable of the performance requirements in the first place. It even supports some devices that I think are kind of poorly suited, like the 3DS.

There are probably some niche devices out there that don't have any support for Netflix, but it runs on every game console, it runs on every smartphone platform that you can buy where I live, it runs on Linux, OS X, Windows, and Chrome OS... I think I'd actually be hard pressed to identify a device that doesn't support Netflix... Maybe the RPi.

Re:If Netflix refuses to make an app for that

[Whiteox]

Netflix doesn't work on any android less than 4.3

Re:If Netflix refuses to make an app for that

[Guspaz]

That's false, Netflix has software available for Android 2.0 or later:

https://help.netflix.com/en/no...

Re:If Netflix refuses to make an app for that

[Guspaz]

Sorry, 2.2 or later.

Re:EME is just DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Get cracking

[unrtst]

Use the right tool for the job, man. If you want non-DRMd video, you're supposed to use a torrent client, not a web browser. Not every tool has to solve every problem, you know - let each be good for its purpose instead.

You've got it all backwards. The right tool for the DRM'd job job already existed in various plugins (flash and silverlight being two recent and commonly used ones). If you want to consume non-DRM'd media, you're supposed to use standard tools and protocols, like web browsers.

HDCP

[tepples]

The EME plugin could transfer video frames to the monitor over [some secured channel]

Isn't this called HDCP?

Re:HDCP

[Dagger2]

I think HDCP is between the GPU and the monitor, rather than extending all the way to the originating software.

(It's also hilariously weak; replacing it with TLS would be much nastier.)

Piling crap on top of crap. On top of crap.

[fyngyrz]

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]

Re: Piling crap on top of crap. On top of crap.

[Billly Gates]

Delete and recreate your ff profile?

Sqlite gets corrupted amd data forked each time it opens Ala windows registry rot in similar fashion. Mozilla stores this with that rdbms.

Let me know if this fixes it?

Re:Get cracking

[lgw]

That word, "standard'? You keep using it, but I don't think that word mean what you think it means. A standard is what people actually use, not what some nerd bitching on /. thinks they should use.

Re:Get cracking

[Black LED]

Don't forget that uninstallable "Pocket" add on that Mozilla has snuck into Firefox to sate their greed. That thing is a real piece of shit.

Re:sandboxing

[blackiner]

Can it access the video card or TPM? It clearly MUST have access to some sort of hardware resources, otherwise the DRM scheme is completely useless (you could just grab the stream of anything decrypted via CPU). I seem to recall news sometime back about microsoft's drm scheme requiring video card driver support in order to secure the stream all the way to the monitor. Sandboxes have breakout vulnerabilities all the time (well, at least on linux... I have no idea how good windows' sandboxing is).

Re:Get cracking

[Endymion]

You're talking about "standard" tools and protocols as if they are some holy relic that is known and defined for all time. The entire fscking point is that these standards are currently in flux, with new standards trying to gain a foothold, while collaborators and useful idiots fight try and convince people that they should adopt it.

You choose to be a collaborator and support DRM by giving it market share. I choose to deny that protocol, because this isn't about movies. Are you going to also accept DRM when the upgrade happens and the current protocol no longer works? Or were you a fool, thinking this particular version of EME was the final version? Would you fight a new version, after everybody has become used to using netflix? No, you support DRM now, so you'll do what you're told and support it again in the future. Oh, of course - you think you're just going to pirate whatever you want!

A huge power grab is being attempted, and you (and many other's in this thread) choose to give DRM the foothold it's looking for. In the future when businesses use DRM for far more than just video - which many industries have been trying to accomplish for years - and you have to turn to piracy for things you use "save as" for right now, do remember that you asked for those restrictions instead of fighting when the threat was smaller. After all, those future publishers will simply be using the new "right tool" for the job.

Re: Get cracking

[Endymion]

Hi, industry shill!

Or do you prefer "useful idiot"?

Re:sandboxing

[Endymion]

He's talking about security.

So am I. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that. DRM is insecure by design. The entire point is make sure the owner of a computer doesn't have root access. This is really basic, so I assume most people know this.

More importantly, the fallacy you are stuck in is that you are looking at the current plugin. I was talking about future updates that no longer follow this model. Or do you think that won't happen? Will you refuse to update when it does? The properties of a future plugin are not restrained to what the current plugin is limited to, and it will be easier to extend the plugin once the current plugin has a lot of users.

Of course, you're posting as annymous, so I assume you salary depends on DRM and therefor there is little chance that you will actually listen to what I have said here. If you want to respond, try to actually address the topic at hand (Firefox's new EME plugin) , instead of parroting useless off-topic facts like the popularity of other DRM schemes or the number of netflix users in general. Of course other types of DRM exist; the question is if you're going to fight this encroachment into a new area or if you're going to give this new plugin it the market share it wants.

Re:Get cracking

[GameboyRMH]

Which one is this? I don't see anything unusual in my addons or plugins list.

Where was the choice?

[MrL0G1C]

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.

Re:But... Why?

[BitZtream]

Or I could download Firefox without DRM, and watch Netflix

No, you could not watch it without the plugin to decrypt it, never have been able to in Firefox, you were watching Netflix with flash if you were using FF before to watch Netflix.

Or I could just use Chrome and get Netflix without this pointless garbage?

Yes, because it already supports the DRM and has for a long time.

Digital Restrictions hand in hand with Open Source

[jbn-o]

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.

Wow, the Firefox shilling is strong with you.

[sethstorm]

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.

Re:Get cracking

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the point of the GP. Websites will turn into DRMd video feeds. There are tons of sites that still restrict right clicking and a smaller ton of sites were created in Flash specifically so you couldn't do things like copy text. With standardized DRM, the people who built those types of sites will now use the new DRM to enforce their requirements. You will have multiple 1-2 frame DRM videos on automatic repeat displaying text instead of receiving actual text from the website. This will massively increase bandwidth and computer resources to display such sites, but the site owners don't care. Have you never come across non-porn sites that are built up of segmented images? There are far too many of these types of sites.

Furthermore, they're going to love this. A 4 minute video of text with a 30 second ad and the whole thing set on repeat. The video is encrypted and illegal to crack. No more ad blockers. No more text selection (really, why were so many sites afraid of raw text?). No more not hitting your bandwidth cap. High tech specs now required (new computer sales!). I'd bet money some site will say their content is better than everyone else's because their DRMed text video feed is in HD.

Re:disable EME

[higuita]

Firefox tried to push open video formats, like webm, and refused to support H264... yet, after years of fighting they gave up, mostly because MS and Apple refused to support it to push their (patented group) H264 format. Only if google switched youtube to webm and stopped supporting H264 it would be possible to do something like that, but even if the webm was a google format, they never really pushed that change and H264 won this round.

Future video support is the new battleground. Yet W3C is set to accept DRM and firefox not supporting it would mean that important sites would either push the usage of other browsers (like netflix) or push the installation of broken plugins (like all the silverlght sites we have today) that may just exist in windows. Either way firefox would be lonely on this battle, as MS, Apple and Google all have interest in DRM video, so it would be a lost battle from the start. It is sad, but delivering video is only set to increase and big companies want to make money from it... even if the browser would not have any DRM, they would create "apps" to support it so that movie industry would allow online video streaming. It is a lost battle, since there is demand for it, not from the users, but from the content makers... and we all know they are stupid, they prefer having no market (and so piracy) than provide open access to their content, just look how music industry works with the internet and how long that battle is taking place

Firefox solution is to use a Adobe "plugin" that is very restricted on what it can do (read a stream, reply a stream), just to decode the DRM. This would allow the DRM validation that some companies require, allow one to disable this very easily and allow for future replacement of that closed "plugin" with any other open implementation (trying to push directly a open DRM "plugin" now could blacklist firefox if someone tried to remove the protection... later, with existent market share it would be harder to blacklist firefox)

So yes, no one wants DRM, not even Mozilla, but looking at the alternative (some other DRM support or protocol you can't control), at least Mozilla can have some control and impose limits by doing this and not sacrifice market share on a battle that would be lost anyway. Don't blame Mozilla on this one, blame MS, Apple and Google for teaming up pushing DRM, so much that W3C have also agreed to add a DRM standard.

Re:Get cracking

[Black LED]

Maybe it isn't in the current "stable" release. I'm running nightly so perhaps it's just an omen for you right now.

Re:Get cracking

[lgw]

WTF are you even talking about? I'm talking about watching movies, while you seem to be writing some sort of dystopian SF novel? Can you really not understand that it's the content owners, not Netflix, not the standards committee, who require DRM?

Re:Get cracking

[lgw]

What you're going on about? It's not a technology problem. There isn't a technology solution for it. This "DRM foothold" you're worried about? It has always been there, since the first popular software existed; along with the cracking tools that made it irrelevant for those who choose not to pay. Same as it ever was.

Re:Get cracking

[fisted]

I whole-heartedly agree with what you say, but please keep in mind that no matter what the strategy, in the end, the DRM'ed content has to be accessible, and therefore can be grabbed and stripped of the DRM one way or another.
Frankly, if the content is video, there is no "equivalent to showing an image of text". How would you go about it, hide the video and instead publish an audio file that describes the movie? ;).

DRM is shit, and if the new DRM in firefox can't be disabled at runtime, then i'll disable it at compile time, and if it can't be disabled at compile-time, i'll patch it out. It's just probably not the end of freedom on the internet, for "us geeks" anyway. Maybe it is for average users, but as you correctly point out yourself, those tend to not care. So why care about them?

Re:EME is just DRM

[Scorpinox]

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.

Re:Get cracking

[Endymion]

Maybe you should start paying attention to what's going on in the world. Major power-grabs are happening and you think it's about movies, simply because the people trying to grab power said so. I don't give a damn about movies or Netflix. What I do care about is legal precedent, the establishing of standards that will be used in other areas, the erosion of rights like the 1st-sale doctrine, and businesses that demand you weaken your computer security.

If this looks like a dystopian SF novel to you , maybe you should start doing something about it instead of accepting whatever price the publishing industry (not netflix) asks for just so you can see the latest movies. Welcome to the War On General Purpose Computing. Some of us have been fighting that war for over 20 years now, trying to prevent the "dystopian SF future". It would be nice if other people joined the fight once and a while, because we're losing the war; a decade ago Mozilla would have never caved, but the pressure has gotten a lot worse.

Anybody discussing movies isn't looking at the larger situation, where some people are asking you to hand your computer's root access over to them, and you do it because thy promise not to abuse that power while threatening to take your toys away.

Re:Get cracking

[Endymion]

in the end, the DRM'ed content has to be accessible

NO, IT DOESN'T.

That's the key point - as long as you have the requirement that DRM content "must" be accessible, it the people that control that content can demand anything they want. You need to tell them the line you aren't going to cross, or the price you won't pay if you want the publishers to change. This is basic supply/demand economics. Infinite demand means the price can be anything.

Yes, this might mean some sacrifice from you, such as not getting to see the latest popular movie. Are you going to pay that cost now, or are you going to keep paying the publishers that demand more and more, so you have to sacrifice even more when the fight happens in the future?

Re:Get cracking

[lgw]

Torrents aren't going away. Build-your-own PCs aren't going away. Tinfoil isn't going away. You'll be fine.

Re:Get cracking

[Trogre]

*shakes head sadly* how I wish that were so. It's exactly people like you who deny there is even a problem, that allow this sort of thing to happen.

Re:Get cracking

[Endymion]

"The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it." -Einstein

or, in the version often attributed to Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Re:disable EME

[Endymion]

Firefox tried to push open video formats, like webm, and refused to support H264.

I know - I argued against that stupid strategy at the time. part of my argument was the same one Mozilla is using now (give up the fight or risk of losing market share).

My solution is still the same: don't ever implement evil or you make the problem worse, do what you can to satisfy market demands by dodging the problem (leave the codec outside of the browser by calling standard OS support (even gstreamer/etc on linux supported h.264 at the time). By ignoring h.264 years ago, Firefox lost users. By adding DRM support, they lost their remaining moral high ground and ability to fight future industry demands. (if they accepted industry demands once, they will do it again in the future).

"plugin" that is very restricted on what it can do

It would be a hasty generalization to assume that this will always be the case. Describing the current implementation does not indicate how it will be implemented in the future. A better extrapolation is that the probability of Mozilla accepting even worse DRM into Firefox in the future is high, because the reasons for accepting it now only grow stronger with time. They wanted to avoid alienating users that supposedly demand Netflix support in the browser. That demand will only increase dramatically when everybody is accustomed to using Netflix in Firefox.

Do you really think Mozilla will put their foot down when the ebook industry gets together with the movie industry to enable text DRM? Or when the plugin changes and requires new holes in the sandbox (e.g. to support Intel's new SGX instructions to create a Trusted Execution Enviornment you cannot access)? You really think that Mozilla will reverse their current behavior, accept the even larger damage to their market share as the Netflix users move to "a browser that works"? No, they will keep paying the industry's demands for danegeld and we lose the free and open web. When lots of the web is wrapped in DRM, do remember that you helped create that future instead of fighting early when the battle was easier.

Re:Get cracking

[fisted]

in the end, the DRM'ed content has to be accessible

NO, IT DOESN'T.

What good is a movie, Mr. Anderson, if there's no way actually to watch it?

No Netflix on Raspberry Pi

[tepples]

[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?

Re:No Netflix on Raspberry Pi

[Guspaz]

It supports some Linux devices running ARM, but in those cases it's pretty specific support. Like, ChromeOS supports Netflix, and that's Linux, and it's sometimes on ARM, but it's not a generic case.

Re:Get cracking

[Dagger2]

That's because it's not actually an extension. They landed the code directly in Firefox itself, so you can't remove it without patching and recompiling.

Also it landed quite recently, so it won't be in a release Firefox until... oh, what's that? We're going to do a special out-of-schedule 38.0.5 release because it needs to be shipped super-fast and we can't be bothered to follow our own testing/release cycle? Okay then.

Re:disable EME

[higuita]

I agree with you, it is a risk, but of all browsers, what is the one you trust the most? What are the alternatives? You can not even now build chromium without a google build ID !!

Mozilla is not perfect, but is really trying to fix the major problems in the web, including the privacy problem. Could then do better? Yes!! but thank, the other browsers are more limited on what to do because they know that even small things can make many people change their loved for a browser and then slowly convince others.

Mozilla accepting this DRM is a way to limit what Apple, Google and MS want to do. Even if Adobe adds more stuff to their DRM plugin, it will only be used if Mozilla allows it. With Mozilla in the W3C group about DRM, it can talk, block, warn users about possible problems. No one wants again a web with different web standards and a "user" voice in the group is important... Mozilla is the closest you get for that. At least the browser code is open, people can fork it if Mozilla started to do "evil" things