Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla's Route For Implementing W3C EME (HTML5 DRM)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mozilla's Route For Implementing W3C EME (HTML5 DRM)

    Phoronix: Mozilla's Route For Implementing W3C EME (HTML5 DRM)

    Due to other web browsers moving ahead with supporting W3C's EME specification, Mozilla too will begin supporting this specification for handling encrypted media (Digital Rights Management) within the web browser...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY5MDU

  • #2
    I don't like HTML5 DRM, but is a necessary wrong if html5 wants to continue expanding instead of third party privative plugins. And Firefox has to implement it to not stay behind.

    Comment


    • #3
      Great,

      So we are trading in Flash/Silvershite for HTML5 plus an adobe CDM plugin which is sure to be buggy and non portable.

      I think it is a loose loose situation for Linux.

      Comment


      • #4
        Dammit

        Comment


        • #5
          Cracked in 5, 4, 3...

          Since it relies on a binary blob, does that mean the DRM provider will be able to choose what platforms we can use it on? So much for an open web.

          Comment


          • #6
            Fuck you, Mozilla

            Paraphrasing Linus with Nvidia: Fuck you, Mozilla.

            First they deal in an odd way with Oracle, now they deal with Adobe. What will be the next? Microsoft?

            They are getting more corrupt in each step, giving advantage to propietary software. They are traitors of open source, thanks to them the web will be more closed than ever.

            Why the hell do we need the shitty DRM to play movies? People will rip it and publish the content on torrent sites (HDDVD, Bluray, HDMI... they are all got cracked), this is a pain in the ass to the user that pays for the content. So here they have, less people will find benefit in paying for content.

            Comment


            • #7
              I can understand Mozilla's need to stay in trend when it come with implementing the HTML5 support and so on.

              I can understand blob against opensource too.

              But to use Adobe's DRM technology? Goddam, I can hardly think about a less Linux friendly software supplier. Even Microshit is more approachable in Linux related matters (not necessary OSS but still Linux, see the hypervisor, linux skype and so on).

              Disgusting overall.

              P.S. A good thing Mozilla is forked on *nix (Debian's Iceweasel for instance) and i hope they wont implement this piece of crap.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by hourwatch View Post
                I don't like HTML5 DRM, but is a necessary wrong if html5 wants to continue expanding instead of third party privative plugins. And Firefox has to implement it to not stay behind.
                Sad that we would still depend on Adobe, who already gave Linux the finger. What about different architectures like ARM and what not?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by danwood76 View Post
                  So we are trading in Flash/Silvershite for HTML5 plus an adobe CDM plugin which is sure to be buggy and non portable.
                  Indeed. The whole purpose of HTML5/CSS/Javascript is to have web-site and web-browser all organized around *OPEN STANDARDS*. So anyone is free to jump in and try experimenting/innovating (even if it is as absurd as getting a web-enabled fridge).
                  With a propretary CDM plugin, we are back to the whole unportable situation as before.

                  I just hope that this time, the CDM will have a *VERY MINIMALISTIC* interface (encrypted data goes in, decrypted data goes out). And will access as few other functionality as possible.
                  Just to reduce the amount of things that adobe will very likely manage to fuck up, and thus reduce the attack surface for future drive-by attackers.

                  Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                  Sad that we would still depend on Adobe, who already gave Linux the finger. What about different architectures like ARM and what not?
                  Let's hope that the interface will be simplistic enough that some other entity could provide a byte-coded (PNaCl? JVM?) alternative that could run on alternate architectures.

                  Originally posted by Britoid View Post
                  Cracked in 5, 4, 3...
                  Indeed, given Adobe's track record regarding security, they are very much likely to fuck up enough that the thing will get reverse engineered.
                  (Cf. what's already happened with the predecessor in Flash : RTMPE vs. rtpmdump )
                  That's an alternative hope for those (like me) happy enough to live in a jurisdiction where such reverse engineering are authorised.

                  The thing that we actually need to hope is that the CDM will be easy enough for Firefox to isolate/jail.
                  Adobe is bound to write an exploitable piece of shit.
                  Process isolation (as done with Flash currently) and/or running in a restricted VM (PNaCl, JVM) would help mitigiate this kind of problems.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                    Sad that we would still depend on Adobe, who already gave Linux the finger. What about different architectures like ARM and what not?
                    Linux is an OS and not an architecture for hardware so I'm not sure what you're asking by bringing up ARM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by araxth View Post
                      P.S. A good thing Mozilla is forked on *nix (Debian's Iceweasel for instance) and i hope they wont implement this piece of crap.
                      Please read how it's actually going to work. There's nothing to "implement".

                      As plugins today, the CDM itself will be distributed by Adobe and will not be included in Firefox. The browser will download the CDM from Adobe and activate it based on user consent.
                      So, when you go to Netflix and it asks you to download the DRM plugin, just say NO, and it won't. Then you won't have any DRM on your machine.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
                        Linux is an OS and not an architecture for hardware so I'm not sure what you're asking by bringing up ARM.
                        It's two separate sentences. In the first one I'm stating that I'm not happy with the company that is going to provide the blob, and in the second I'm asking a question about the probability of it. But I guess if the blob has OS dependencies Linux support would also be questionable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                          I just hope that this time, the CDM will have a *VERY MINIMALISTIC* interface (encrypted data goes in, decrypted data goes out). And will access as few other functionality as possible.

                          ...

                          The thing that we actually need to hope is that the CDM will be easy enough for Firefox to isolate/jail.

                          ...

                          Process isolation (as done with Flash currently) and/or running in a restricted VM (PNaCl, JVM) would help mitigiate this kind of problems.
                          Please read the mozilla article. Supposedly, the CDM will run in an open source sandbox, and the only thing going in and out is the encrypted and decrypted video data. We'll have to wait and see if that's what finally gets shipped or not, but they have at least been thinking about these exact issues and have tried to mitigate them as much as possible.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
                            Linux is an OS and not an architecture for hardware so I'm not sure what you're asking by bringing up ARM.
                            Usual approach of ARM by several closed-source software maker (including Adobe):
                            "But we *DO* support ARM: we have an Android plug-in".

                            In practice: "...but they don't have Linux support on anything else than i686. Maybe x86_64 if you are lucky. Forget about anything else."
                            So no plug-ins for ARM Linux (like Meamo/Tizen/SailfishOS, like plain OpenSUSE on ARM netbooks, etc.)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                              But I guess if the blob has OS dependencies Linux support would also be questionable.
                              Yeah, nowhere in there does it say anything about actual Linux support. I'd be surprised if the initial release has it, i bet it's windows only at least to begin with.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X