Adding DRM to Firefox

by
in internet on (#3KN)
story imageVideo streaming sites, such as Netflix and Hulu, have traditionally used non-free plugins, such as Flash and Silverlight, to perform DRM functions. Interest to move these services to the new HTML5 video tag, however, requires a mechanism to handle the DRM naughty bits. The W3C EME specification describes such a beast, but involves a non-free CDM binary. Here is Mozilla's take on the matter.
Reply 12 comments

Caved in! (Score: 2, Insightful)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-05-14 22:39 (#1MC)

OK, so they are against it, but feel obliged to keep up with the times and to prevent people from having to reach for an alternative web browser they're going to implement DRM too. Lovely. How about, we just don't visit those DRMed sites? What the F has happened to the Internet we know and love? Is FIDOnet still around? At least we owned that one. This new, corporate-run, DRMed, spy-platform Internet sucks dogballs. Guess it's time to switch to Chrome! Nope. Opera? Hmm. Lynx/w3m/elinks?

Re: Caved in! (Score: 1)

by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-05-14 23:24 (#1ME)

I think TFA does do a pretty good job of describing why they are "caving in." You can look at it as taking a fully non-free system (Flash) and converting it into an fully free and standards-based system (HTML5 video tag) + a much smaller non-free library.

Or in other words, the non-free part got smaller and easier to remove.

Re: Caved in! (Score: 1)

by genx@pipedot.org on 2014-05-14 23:28 (#1MF)

Is FIDOnet still around? At least we owned that one.
I believe it is still present in Russia, but it has almost or totally disappeared from other regions of the world.

Re: Caved in! (Score: 1)

by nightsky30@pipedot.org on 2014-05-15 11:41 (#1MP)

I'm using Chrome with pipelight . The only other issue is that I need to open the chrome dev console and spoof as a Windows Chrome browser agent right before starting the Netflix stream. It has worked amazingly well. I've never had it crash, kill the stream, or anything.

If someone cares to develop some bastardized version of pipelight for elinks, I'd test the hell outta that.

Misleading headline (Score: 5, Informative)

by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2014-05-15 00:13 (#1MG)

Firefox does not load this module directly. Instead, we wrap it into an open-source sandbox . In our implementation, the CDM will have no access to the user's hard drive or the network. Instead, the sandbox will provide the CDM only with communication mechanism with Firefox for receiving encrypted data and for displaying the results
So they are adding a way to load a module that supports DRM playback. They are not adding DRM to Firefox. They are adding DRM capabilities to Firefox. I think that's an important distinction.

Re: Misleading headline (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-05-15 20:20 (#1MY)

They are not adding DRM to Firefox. They are adding DRM capabilities to Firefox. I think that's an important distinction.
Albeit one that is meaningless in practice.

Mozilla: Committed to you, your privacy and DRM!

I generally support artists and software developers (Score: 2, Interesting)

by rocks@pipedot.org on 2014-05-15 00:46 (#1MH)

Who want you to pay for their work and maybe use DRM to twist your arm... because ultimately I think it is their choice...

That said, I almost always choose the open source and free software option when available and listen to music via radio... because I generally value all of this stuff becoming lingua franca across all economic and accessibility classes...

There is probably a contradiction in here somewhere...

Re: I generally support artists and software developers (Score: 3, Insightful)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-05-15 11:20 (#1MK)

The question of DRM or no DRM is often a false dichotomy. I published the Dictator's Handbook (www.dictatorshandbook.net) in a no-DRM EPUB format and no-DRM MOBI format. Anyone who wanted to could buy a single copy and spaff it all over the internet for pirating and sharing. That's not really happened, and I've sold plenty of books. I think a lot of musicians are finding the same. Not sure about movie publishers.

Re: I generally support artists and software developers (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-05-15 13:10 (#1MS)

Sure. I understand other publishers (Tor, O'Reilly, etc.) and even higher profile game developers have done the same thing, World of Goo I think. (Also Louis CK.) Dump the onerous DRM that punishes paying customers, and let your stuff get popular, treating the "piracy" as more or less free advertising / trialware or at worst a minor annoyance, since approximately 0% would have paid for it.

Re: I generally support artists and software developers (Score: 3, Insightful)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-05-15 14:44 (#1MV)

Yes, you've phrased it very well. Too bad RIAA executives and their cronies can't see this as clearly. Blinded by the money, perhaps (and the whores and cocaine, I'm sure).

Re: I generally support artists and software developers (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-05-15 23:03 (#1N1)

Links?

Re: I generally support artists and software developers (Score: 1)

by hyper@pipedot.org on 2014-05-15 23:02 (#1N0)

It is a real pity I can not easily buy non-drm ebooks. I am not installing ebook drm reader software on my mobile devices. Ever.