They already actively support DRM through binary plugins, so what's the difference? If you've been using Firefox you've already voted for the communist party, so why complain now?
... which is placed is a sandbox environment so it can't do any of the damage that current proprietary closed source, restrictive DRM plugins like Flash do right now.
So what's the difference between Firefox offering an insecure binary plugin API for proprietary plugins like Flash, Silverlight and Java, and Firefox offering a sandboxed plugin API for DRM decoding modules?
RMS is right in this case, DRM just harms everyone. Now Linux might play some more videos, but everyone who wants to run Amiga or Haiku, or another platform will be shutout from accessing that content.
So, it's exactly the same situation as it is now with Flash/Silverlight and nothing's changed?
Bullshit. Current content distributors are more proprietary than the proposed DRM system. Right now you have things like Youtube and Netflix that not only "force" people to view content through their "proprietary" web interface, but also force users to view some or all videos through poorly written proprietary binary plugins like Flash and Silverlight.
Either that or they require entire proprietary binary apps to view content.
The proposed system is to move as much of that as possible into open web standards, and keep the proprietary plugin part to an absolute minimum, sandboxed so it can only access the stream and nothing else.
That is more open than the current system and gives users more choice over what browser they access content with.
Nice strawmen there. This new DRM plugin is just as option as Flash and Silverlight currently are, did anyone come round your house and hold a gun to your head to force you to install them? No? Well I guess you can choose to not install any DRM plugins then.
This is a strategy promoted by the distributors to advance their own selfish interests, by Netflix/Google/MS, it locks the user into using the distributors web based media player, is anti-competitive, and damages the health of the open web market. By supporting the EME Mozilla has made it almost impossible for the open web community to promote alternatives, damaging the open web community, in an act of betrayal.
What is this drivel? All these distributors already lock you into use their players, either proprietary binary apps or using proprietary binary plugins like Flash or Silverlight. How would a competing open video player magically appear?
What this DRM proposal does is move the entire interface into open web standards and keeps the bare minimum (the video decryption) as a proprietary component. That is more open than the current solution and gives users more choice over the browser they access content with.
Baker fails to explain how switching Firefox to include proprietary software fits that mission. In fact, with a bit of revisionist history, she says that open source was merely an "approach" that Mozilla Foundation was using, not their mission."
The thing is, Firefox already includes support for proprietary software like Flash and Silverlight, having a different API specifically for DRM plugins changes nothing.
Which is why all the music I buy these days is so heavily encumbered with DRM. Despite the shrill protests of the public, the only way to get the content was to accept DRM on my music files.
Oh wait, no, I don't.
I happily pay £10 a month for Spotify. The music stream is, as you put it, heavily encumbered with DRM. And it's feckin awesome. I can listen to anything I want as much as I want.
Would I buy a DRM encumbered album, TV show or movie? No. But if media companies want to encrypt streaming services that's perfectly fine with me because I'm not going to lose anything (I didn't buy anything to begin with) and I'm gaining massive convenience.
If this DRM plugin system (which will run in a sandbox so can only access the video stream) will get rid of proprietary binary plugins like Flash or Silverlight (which have complete access to your system) then that will benefit all web users.
DRM has no actual upside. There is no "Weeelll but roads are kinda nice" counter point. DRM is bad. Period. It doesn't work at it stated purpose, costs the people who implement it more money to use it, and those of up willing to bypass it do so trivially while those that are not willing suffer under new restrictions while actually being paying customers.
I think DRM is acceptable in situations where you're paying a flat subscription rate for unlimited streaming (eg. where the customer doesn't have to pay to "own" a video/song). Sure in an ideal world we wouldn't have DRM on streaming either, but if having DRM encourages media companies to licence content for streaming when they otherwise wouldn't then that's still a positive, as it gives consumers more choices and may eventually even help facilitate the downfall of said media companies by giving new players like Netflix a better base to build new business models and new methods of TV show production like House of Cards from.
It is a stunt that will land you in jail. A stunt that will end in the Firefox browser refusing to install or communicate with any unauthorized extensions.
O RLY? I see several torrent/pirate site related add-ons in the official Firefox add-on repository...
Nonsense. All they needed was an HTML5 tag identifying DRM content that starts and external player that the user can decide to use or not use.
Um, how is that any different to the HTML5 tag identifying DRM content starting an external DRM plugin that the user can decide to use or not use, which is the exact system they are implementing.
They're even trying to completely sandbox the DRM plugin so it can't access anything on your computer other than the video stream, which is much better than having a proprietary binary application running at the user's access level.
Unfortunately the market has spoken, and it is very happy to pay for DRM streaming services. At least this way the only proprietary part is the video decoder, the rest is open web standards, which is an improvement on the current situation.
Which would then, without these proposals, leave us only with either proprietary binary apps or some other equally bad binary plugin. The market has shown people are happy with DRM streaming services, this is by far the most open way to go about it that media companies will currently allow, and is at least a small step in the right direction for them.
DRM isn't Free. They have failed. And to somehow justify it by saying "someone else will do it anyway" is schoolyard "logic"/ rationalization.
Open your eyes, Mozilla already actively support browser DRM, and worse they only support it through a binary plugin API that allows proprietary closed source code complete control over your PC. Do you really think things like Flash and Silverlight are the right solution for DRM? Because that's what we have right now.
This new DRM plugin API is designed to take as much of the current proprietary solutions as possible and move it into open standards, and sandbox the remaining closed source elements so they can only decode content and nothing else. It is far freer and more secure than the current arrangement.
Really? I don't remember Firefox installing Flash, Silverlight, or any one of the many existing proprietary binary DRM plugins that already exist without my consent.
Are you using Firefox right now? Because they already actively support proprietary binary DRM modules, and worse these modules have complete control of your PC and are usually full of security issues.
If offering a binary plugin API that allows abominations like Flash to exist isn't a problem, when why is offering a DRM plugin API that is completely sandboxed and locked down an issue?
but along came Mozilla. Mozilla proved more successfull because it was DRM intollerant
Bullshit, Mozilla has actively supported DRM from the very beginning by allowing proprietary binary plugins like Flash and Silverlight. Worse of all, these proprietary closed source plugins have complete control of your PC.
What this DRM proposal is doing is removing the need for these overly broad plugins by providing a reduced plugin API that runs in a sandbox to prevent the proprietary code from doing anything on your PC beyond decoding the audio/video.
Open your eyes, web DRM is already firmly here, it's just being brought to us through proprietary binary plugins like Flash or proprietary binary applications. All this DRM standard is doing is moving more of the DRM that already exists into web standards, and keeping the only proprietary part required (the DRM engine) far more locked down and sandboxed than existing solutions. Remember as it stands Flash has access to your entire PC, where these DRM plugin engines are being designed to sandbox the code so all it can do is decode video streams and nothing else.
Plus not installing a web DRM plugin is exactly the same as not installing Flash.
What, you think that all the existing video DRM would magically disappear? Firefox and Chrome already actively support DRM through proprietary binary plugins like Flash, which have total access to your PC. All this DRM standard is doing is moving as much of the existing DRM as possible into web standards and giving the proprietary DRM binary code as little access to your computer as possible.
Why the fuck would anyone want to have to sit down at a specific time on a specific day to watch a TV broadcast when they could plug a computer into the same TV and watch any show at any time and on any day?
Slashdot Mirror
They already actively support DRM through binary plugins, so what's the difference? If you've been using Firefox you've already voted for the communist party, so why complain now?
The bad things started when Flash added encrypted video. This is making things a bit better than before.
... which is placed is a sandbox environment so it can't do any of the damage that current proprietary closed source, restrictive DRM plugins like Flash do right now.
So from a sample size of 1 you've decided all streaming services are bad?
How will a limited DRM plugin API destory the web more than broad, leaky, proprietary binary plugins like Flash, Java and Silverlight?
So what's the difference between Firefox offering an insecure binary plugin API for proprietary plugins like Flash, Silverlight and Java, and Firefox offering a sandboxed plugin API for DRM decoding modules?
RMS is right in this case, DRM just harms everyone. Now Linux might play some more videos, but everyone who wants to run Amiga or Haiku, or another platform will be shutout from accessing that content.
So, it's exactly the same situation as it is now with Flash/Silverlight and nothing's changed?
This is the inclusion of closed source, liberty restricting software in a product that touts its open source, free and open internet stance.
How is this any more "including closed source, liberty restricting software" than allowing plugins like Flash and Silverlight to be installed?
Bullshit. Current content distributors are more proprietary than the proposed DRM system. Right now you have things like Youtube and Netflix that not only "force" people to view content through their "proprietary" web interface, but also force users to view some or all videos through poorly written proprietary binary plugins like Flash and Silverlight.
Either that or they require entire proprietary binary apps to view content.
The proposed system is to move as much of that as possible into open web standards, and keep the proprietary plugin part to an absolute minimum, sandboxed so it can only access the stream and nothing else.
That is more open than the current system and gives users more choice over what browser they access content with.
Nice strawmen there. This new DRM plugin is just as option as Flash and Silverlight currently are, did anyone come round your house and hold a gun to your head to force you to install them? No? Well I guess you can choose to not install any DRM plugins then.
This is a strategy promoted by the distributors to advance their own selfish interests, by Netflix/Google/MS, it locks the user into using the distributors web based media player, is anti-competitive, and damages the health of the open web market. By supporting the EME Mozilla has made it almost impossible for the open web community to promote alternatives, damaging the open web community, in an act of betrayal.
What is this drivel? All these distributors already lock you into use their players, either proprietary binary apps or using proprietary binary plugins like Flash or Silverlight. How would a competing open video player magically appear?
What this DRM proposal does is move the entire interface into open web standards and keeps the bare minimum (the video decryption) as a proprietary component. That is more open than the current solution and gives users more choice over the browser they access content with.
Baker fails to explain how switching Firefox to include proprietary software fits that mission. In fact, with a bit of revisionist history, she says that open source was merely an "approach" that Mozilla Foundation was using, not their mission."
The thing is, Firefox already includes support for proprietary software like Flash and Silverlight, having a different API specifically for DRM plugins changes nothing.
Which is why all the music I buy these days is so heavily encumbered with DRM. Despite the shrill protests of the public, the only way to get the content was to accept DRM on my music files.
Oh wait, no, I don't.
I happily pay £10 a month for Spotify. The music stream is, as you put it, heavily encumbered with DRM. And it's feckin awesome. I can listen to anything I want as much as I want.
Would I buy a DRM encumbered album, TV show or movie? No. But if media companies want to encrypt streaming services that's perfectly fine with me because I'm not going to lose anything (I didn't buy anything to begin with) and I'm gaining massive convenience.
If this DRM plugin system (which will run in a sandbox so can only access the video stream) will get rid of proprietary binary plugins like Flash or Silverlight (which have complete access to your system) then that will benefit all web users.
DRM has no actual upside. There is no "Weeelll but roads are kinda nice" counter point. DRM is bad. Period. It doesn't work at it stated purpose, costs the people who implement it more money to use it, and those of up willing to bypass it do so trivially while those that are not willing suffer under new restrictions while actually being paying customers.
I think DRM is acceptable in situations where you're paying a flat subscription rate for unlimited streaming (eg. where the customer doesn't have to pay to "own" a video/song). Sure in an ideal world we wouldn't have DRM on streaming either, but if having DRM encourages media companies to licence content for streaming when they otherwise wouldn't then that's still a positive, as it gives consumers more choices and may eventually even help facilitate the downfall of said media companies by giving new players like Netflix a better base to build new business models and new methods of TV show production like House of Cards from.
It is a stunt that will land you in jail. A stunt that will end in the Firefox browser refusing to install or communicate with any unauthorized extensions.
O RLY? I see several torrent/pirate site related add-ons in the official Firefox add-on repository...
Nonsense. All they needed was an HTML5 tag identifying DRM content that starts and external player that the user can decide to use or not use.
Um, how is that any different to the HTML5 tag identifying DRM content starting an external DRM plugin that the user can decide to use or not use, which is the exact system they are implementing.
They're even trying to completely sandbox the DRM plugin so it can't access anything on your computer other than the video stream, which is much better than having a proprietary binary application running at the user's access level.
Unfortunately the market has spoken, and it is very happy to pay for DRM streaming services. At least this way the only proprietary part is the video decoder, the rest is open web standards, which is an improvement on the current situation.
Which would then, without these proposals, leave us only with either proprietary binary apps or some other equally bad binary plugin. The market has shown people are happy with DRM streaming services, this is by far the most open way to go about it that media companies will currently allow, and is at least a small step in the right direction for them.
DRM isn't Free. They have failed. And to somehow justify it by saying "someone else will do it anyway" is schoolyard "logic"/ rationalization.
Open your eyes, Mozilla already actively support browser DRM, and worse they only support it through a binary plugin API that allows proprietary closed source code complete control over your PC. Do you really think things like Flash and Silverlight are the right solution for DRM? Because that's what we have right now.
This new DRM plugin API is designed to take as much of the current proprietary solutions as possible and move it into open standards, and sandbox the remaining closed source elements so they can only decode content and nothing else. It is far freer and more secure than the current arrangement.
Really? I don't remember Firefox installing Flash, Silverlight, or any one of the many existing proprietary binary DRM plugins that already exist without my consent.
Are you using Firefox right now? Because they already actively support proprietary binary DRM modules, and worse these modules have complete control of your PC and are usually full of security issues.
If offering a binary plugin API that allows abominations like Flash to exist isn't a problem, when why is offering a DRM plugin API that is completely sandboxed and locked down an issue?
but along came Mozilla. Mozilla proved more successfull because it was DRM intollerant
Bullshit, Mozilla has actively supported DRM from the very beginning by allowing proprietary binary plugins like Flash and Silverlight. Worse of all, these proprietary closed source plugins have complete control of your PC.
What this DRM proposal is doing is removing the need for these overly broad plugins by providing a reduced plugin API that runs in a sandbox to prevent the proprietary code from doing anything on your PC beyond decoding the audio/video.
Open your eyes, web DRM is already firmly here, it's just being brought to us through proprietary binary plugins like Flash or proprietary binary applications. All this DRM standard is doing is moving more of the DRM that already exists into web standards, and keeping the only proprietary part required (the DRM engine) far more locked down and sandboxed than existing solutions. Remember as it stands Flash has access to your entire PC, where these DRM plugin engines are being designed to sandbox the code so all it can do is decode video streams and nothing else.
Plus not installing a web DRM plugin is exactly the same as not installing Flash.
Then DRM would be dead in the water.
What, you think that all the existing video DRM would magically disappear? Firefox and Chrome already actively support DRM through proprietary binary plugins like Flash, which have total access to your PC. All this DRM standard is doing is moving as much of the existing DRM as possible into web standards and giving the proprietary DRM binary code as little access to your computer as possible.
Why the fuck would anyone want to have to sit down at a specific time on a specific day to watch a TV broadcast when they could plug a computer into the same TV and watch any show at any time and on any day?