You answered your own question: Netflix probably pressured Firefox along with other streamers. This type of DRM will not affect you unless you've been illegally downloading the videos you were watching on Netflix while they were being streamed. What this DRM does is encrypt the data so that it makes it harder for people to download and copy the streaming footage. I say make it harder, because they will never stop it and then there is the fact that Google Chrome and Internet Explorer have been doing this for years now, and people are still able to download the stuff. Hagi I believe posted an image and explanation earlier in the thread. All this DRM does is encrypt the data that is being streamed to you; for another comparison thing sorta like how you can't use an HDMI capture device on something that's HDCP encrypted.WeepingAngels said:Netflix has been available on Firefox for years, why this sudden need to add DRM?
this. so much this. people wil lread the headline and go on a rampage but they really should read this post first.Scrumpmonkey said:This story is more like "Mozilla Firefox accepts sad reality of modern day DRM in services it's users expect". I know Firefox hasn't exactly been at it's best lately but sadly it does seem to be the reality that W3C EME is too ubiquitous not to be compliant with.
So marches on the death of the open web.
funny how that turned out as any DVD reader can decypher and copy the content all you want. its basic OS functionality, and basically all we have now is software bloat.Hagi said:To give a real world example: it's like DVDs. Commercially produced DVDs have all their data scrambled to prevent copying. So DVD players need special software to unscramble said DVDs before they can play them, this is Firefox including said special software in their browser to unscramble things because idiots who don't understand computers thought they should be scrambled. Note how there's a million freaking programs all over the internet to allow the copying, decryption and ripping of DVDs.
well, it brought you here didnt it. so thats money earled for the escapist. escapist seems to be very agressive with their clicbait, but thats always been the case.dyre said:Geez, do you guys have to use intentionally misleading headlines for all your articles? I really doubt it brings more traffic to the site.
but there really is no alternative though, considering that all the main competitors already support this encryption.Riverwolf said:In most any other circumstance, this would be when I switch providers, since I'm vehemently against DRM of any kind.
you do realize that google is the one pushing for this implementation and its already implemented in chrome, right?PhoenixUp said:Well, there's always Chrome.
I, for one, welcome our Google overlords.
as if ripping low quality internet streams was anything to brag about. especially when high quality downloads are both easier and, well, higher quality.WhiteTigerShiro said:So your first instinct when posting a reply to a news report about DRM is to brag about being the reason that said DRM is felt necessary in the first place. Grats.
its funny, because this was updated into youtube recently and it broke a plugin i use to streach the youtube player across whole window without going fullscreen. it took only couple hours for the plugin to be updated and circumvent the changes youtube made. so its clearly not stopping anyone from ripping off streams. youtube has been fighting this battle for years now and loosing every time.Phrozenflame500 said:As it says in the article (hint hint), they're adding support for a video playback DRM meant to stop people from just ripping streams off of Netflix, etc. or otherwise illegally misusing the data. This playback DRM already exists in internet explorer and chrome, and really doesn't practically negatively effect the consumer at all.
why would you download chrome? chrome has supported this ever since its release. google is the one pushing for this DRM.Sheo_Dagana said:Whew, we can deny it permission? Done deal. Guess I'll stop downloading Chrome now...
well, if from what i read is true and its going to act like a third party plugin (like flash) then its definatelly going to affect me when it starts crashing. and flash crashes A LOT not to mention some utterly shit players based on it (like youtube). This will affect you in the following ways:Neronium said:You answered your own question: Netflix probably pressured Firefox along with other streamers. This type of DRM will not affect you unless you've been illegally downloading the videos you were watching on Netflix while they were being streamed. What this DRM does is encrypt the data so that it makes it harder for people to download and copy the streaming footage. I say make it harder, because they will never stop it and then there is the fact that Google Chrome and Internet Explorer have been doing this for years now, and people are still able to download the stuff. Hagi I believe posted an image and explanation earlier in the thread. All this DRM does is encrypt the data that is being streamed to you; for another comparison thing sorta like how you can't use an HDMI capture device on something that's HDCP encrypted.
The thing is, it didn't bring me onto the site; I was already here the whole time. It just shifted my attention to browsing the news forum instead of the offtopic forum. I think that's the case for most people who read Escapist news, so their clickbait isn't really helping them because this site's news doesn't actually generate additional traffic for the site.Strazdas said:well, it brought you here didnt it. so thats money earled for the escapist. escapist seems to be very agressive with their clicbait, but thats always been the case.dyre said:Geez, do you guys have to use intentionally misleading headlines for all your articles? I really doubt it brings more traffic to the site.
Like I said, there's Firefox-derivatives that could keep it out if things got too bad. That's one of many beauties of open-source.Strazdas said:but there really is no alternative though, considering that all the main competitors already support this encryption.
I suppose you've never tried using Netflix from Firefox on Linux. Netflix already has DRM implemented through Microsoft Silverlight. Currently the only way to watch Netflix on Linux is to use a Wine wrapped version of Silverlight.WeepingAngels said:Netflix has been available on Firefox for years, why this sudden need to add DRM?
Technically it is decrypting the data. Wouldn't be protected if it was already in plain text. I believe the idea is that the module gets securely passed the decryption key (they would probably prefer a hardware implementation), and then acts as a black box of sorts that you send the DRM-protected content, which it translates and sends back up in some form for presentation.Neronium said:It encrypts the data for streaming videos so people can't illegally download full movies from places like Netflix and Hulu. All this is doing is encrypting the data, something that Google Chrome and Internet Explorer have always been doing.bug_of_war said:Wait, so what does this DRM actually do? And what does it do with the other internet browsers?
I watch Netflix on my Wii, since Silverlight stopped working properly, so I don't really care.major_chaos said:Hope you don't want to use Netflix or its contemporaries, because that's what this is for.canadamus_prime said:Also if my permission is required then permission not granted.
Ads, well yeah. I was going to move to Chrome when the ads started.DoctorM said:I guess there's always Opera... I've been meaning to install it.
Between this and the ads, I don't see the point of staying with bloated FF.
I don't think this is being used on YouTube. This is intended more for Hulu and Netflix where the content is considered copy-protected. Are you talking about the switch to HTML5 players? Because that's a different beast entirely.Strazdas said:its funny, because this was updated into youtube recently and it broke a plugin i use to streach the youtube player across whole window without going fullscreen. it took only couple hours for the plugin to be updated and circumvent the changes youtube made. so its clearly not stopping anyone from ripping off streams. youtube has been fighting this battle for years now and loosing every time.
This is a non-argument. Are you saying that EME has negatively affected the consumer on IE or Chrome? Are you saying that the mere presence of an Adobe product (ignoring the already numerous Adobe extensions I have installed) will make the browser slower? Elaborate.Strazdas said:Also if you think it has never negativelly effected a consumer you must have never used Adobe products.
you clicked on the link. ads loaded. you clicked on the comments. ads loaded. you commented. ads loaded. all those ads bring escapist money.dyre said:The thing is, it didn't bring me onto the site; I was already here the whole time. It just shifted my attention to browsing the news forum instead of the offtopic forum. I think that's the case for most people who read Escapist news, so their clickbait isn't really helping them because this site's news doesn't actually generate additional traffic for the site.
yes, b ut the popularity of said derivatives, and in turn support for them is very questionable. many people here went on "switching to chrome" though. Also Safari, really? how is that thing even alive? its horrible. my dad used it at one point, oh god why.Riverwolf said:Like I said, there's Firefox-derivatives that could keep it out if things got too bad. That's one of many beauties of open-source.Strazdas said:but there really is no alternative though, considering that all the main competitors already support this encryption.
I didn't mean I'd switch over to Chrome or Safari. (Internet Explorer doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.)
EME works the same way as adobe product DRM works. and i also went on to explain how it can negatively effect costumers which you nicely snipped away.Phrozenflame500 said:This is a non-argument. Are you saying that EME has negatively affected the consumer on IE or Chrome? Are you saying that the mere presence of an Adobe product (ignoring the already numerous Adobe extensions I have installed) will make the browser slower? Elaborate.Strazdas said:Also if you think it has never negativelly effected a consumer you must have never used Adobe products.
Oh alright, I didn't read the bottom part of your post since it was addressed to somebody else.Strazdas said:EME works the same way as adobe product DRM works. and i also went on to explain how it can negatively effect costumers which you nicely snipped away.
Safari is only alive because it's the default browser for Apple products.Strazdas said:yes, b ut the popularity of said derivatives, and in turn support for them is very questionable. many people here went on "switching to chrome" though. Also Safari, really? how is that thing even alive? its horrible. my dad used it at one point, oh god why.
P.S. firefox ads. where are they? one of my computers runs 29 (i didnt let the other one update after i saw how that ended up) and i still havent seen any ads from firefox there.
All that would still have happened if I had spent that same time posting in OT, or even if the headline was more neutral. Sensationalist headlines are supposed to draw new traffic to the site, not redirect existing traffic. In that sense they'll always be a failure because the Escapist is simply not a site that anyone who isn't already on the Escapist would use for news. Unless they make additional ad money in news threads compared to offtopic threads, there's no reason to specifically try to draw Escapist users towards the news stories specifically.Strazdas said:you clicked on the link. ads loaded. you clicked on the comments. ads loaded. you commented. ads loaded. all those ads bring escapist money.dyre said:The thing is, it didn't bring me onto the site; I was already here the whole time. It just shifted my attention to browsing the news forum instead of the offtopic forum. I think that's the case for most people who read Escapist news, so their clickbait isn't really helping them because this site's news doesn't actually generate additional traffic for the site.
I wasn't referring to Mozilla. I was referring to the people that forced Mozilla to do this. The ones that think that DRM is a good idea.kiri2tsubasa said:Another victory of not reading the article at all.
The causal user don't care about multiple browsers. If Firefox doesn't allow him to visit Netflix, he'll just move to Chrome. And not only for browsing Netflix, for everything.Icehearted said:I believe they could have taken a stand, and it would have worked out. Even if people only used an alternate browser for those services Firefox would have been more than a thermometer, they would have been a show of power in favor of the end user.