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

[ssokolow]

I dont know... Frankly I refuse to consume any content protected by DRM, whether it is an "open" DRM system or a binary blob. So whether I refuse to install Flash, or whether I refuse to install some other binary DRM blob, the outcome is the same. Sitting on the moral high ground of a boycott

Frankly the potential talk of adding adverts to Mozilla Firefox had a lot more impact on me. I couldn't care less about things like Netflix.

There is a massive load of content (free and non-free) on sites like the Pirate Bay, why do people even use streaming services? Perhaps pay for the content and then grab a torrent. Simple and I don't believe it breaks any enforcable terms of use either.

Streaming services are "old fashioned".

I sometimes have no choice (eg. university course materials) so I have a strict policy of only using Flash to generate the request parameters necessary for tools like rtmpsrv to dump the video to disk for MPlayer-based playback and preservation.

(I use rtmpsrv for two reasons. First, it's more robust than rtmpsuck. Second, I consider it a feature that it prevents the flash player from playing as the file downloads. I only ever see content that I get to keep.)

[kpedersen]

I dont know... Frankly I refuse to consume any content protected by DRM, whether it is an "open" DRM system or a binary blob. So whether I refuse to install Flash, or whether I refuse to install some other binary DRM blob, the outcome is the same. Sitting on the moral high ground of a boycott

Frankly the potential talk of adding adverts to Mozilla Firefox had a lot more impact on me. I couldn't care less about things like Netflix.

There is a massive load of content (free and non-free) on sites like the Pirate Bay, why do people even use streaming services? Perhaps pay for the content and then grab a torrent. Simple and I don't believe it breaks any enforcable terms of use either.

Streaming services are "old fashioned".

[Anfdrea]

you're asking by bringing up ARM.

[smitty3268]

Flash and silverlight started exactly like that.

I'm not old enough to remember how Flash started, but silverlight definitely didn't.

From the very start, Silverlight was meant to be a full Flash replacement, and to bring the whole .net/c# environment into web programming. Their goal was nothing less than replacing html/javascript entirely with silverlight, at least for web apps.

Any focus on video was strictly to gain parity with Flash, so as to provide a viable alternative to replace it with.

[mcirsta]

pretty sure this will be RE

I wouldn't worry much about this. Anything that reaches a PC, even in a binary form is bound be RE given some time and people who want to do it. If it bothers me enough I might even do this myself

[abral]

It looks like Mozilla's mission to take bake the web is failing after initial success. When they just started, their goal has been to take back the web from IE and proprietary/system specific ActiveX. Now what? Instead of ActiveX BLOBs you will have EME DRM BLOBs. Which does "nothing useful for user" and just wastes resources on useless decryption at very best case or serves as anti-user spyware//backdoor/restriction at worst case. That's what I call FAIL.

And in fact DRM fuxx should throw all users into jail to prevent possible piracy. Because users can make screenshots or even record screencasts. Or if it getting hard, users can use camera to film their screen. And it's not like if you can forbid to do so without throwing user into jail and dedicating some 2-3 strong guards to check what user does. Else user can "steal" their precious content for sure. Seriously, this DRM idiocy goes too far.

Note that there isn't anything different between the current situation and the future. Now DRM content is served via Flash, in the future it will be server through this DRM component. At least it is more secure than before (because it's executed in a really restricted sandbox) and respects privacy a bit more than Flash (because Firefox won't allow the DRM component to track the user).

You can still decide whether you want to install the DRM component or not, just like with Flash or Silverlight or any other plugin.

Sadly this is the current state of the industry, and most people don't understand what DRM is and what it entails, so Mozilla was basically forced to support this new standard.

[tuubi]

Instead of ActiveX BLOBs you will have EME DRM BLOBs. Which does "nothing useful for user" and just wastes resources on useless decryption at very best case or serves as anti-user spyware//backdoor/restriction at worst case. That's what I call FAIL.

We'll have no trouble avoiding sites that require these DRM blobs, whereas ActiveX used to be needed for essential web apps like online banking. This can and will only used by commercial media sites. It will not magically take over every service you depend on. I think Mozilla did pretty well in it's mission to free us from IE and ActiveX.

So admittedly this is a setback, but not a huge one. DRM is the entertainment industry's feeble panic reaction to a rapidly changing market. The biggest and greediest companies treat their paying customers like criminals, which is obviously appalling, but for various reasons they can get away with it. This mess is all about business and politics, and cannot be fixed by a single free software company.

[0xBADCODE]

Hey. Mozilla, your mission FAILED?

It looks like Mozilla's mission to take bake the web is failing after initial success. When they just started, their goal has been to take back the web from IE and proprietary/system specific ActiveX. Now what? Instead of ActiveX BLOBs you will have EME DRM BLOBs. Which does "nothing useful for user" and just wastes resources on useless decryption at very best case or serves as anti-user spyware//backdoor/restriction at worst case. That's what I call FAIL.

And in fact DRM fuxx should throw all users into jail to prevent possible piracy. Because users can make screenshots or even record screencasts. Or if it getting hard, users can use camera to film their screen. And it's not like if you can forbid to do so without throwing user into jail and dedicating some 2-3 strong guards to check what user does. Else user can "steal" their precious content for sure. Seriously, this DRM idiocy goes too far.

[erendorn]

Security capabilities.

ah thanks

[liam]

A cap?
In any case, if the user is in control of the platform (desktop windows and linux, rooted phones), binaries cannot be remotely trusted, while on platforms were the user is not (most portable OS including iOS and WP, gaming consoles, hardware players like boxes, etc..) then you can implement that. This can easily be observed in that there is much more cheating on PC games than on consoles, and that it is much easier to implement protected solutions (eg netflix) on portable devices and closed hardware (set-top box, console) than on PCs.

Security capabilities.