DRM Is Coming To Firefox

[WeepingAngels]

Netflix has been available on Firefox for years, why this sudden need to add DRM?

 

[Roxas1359]

Netflix has been available on Firefox for years, why this sudden need to add DRM?

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.

 

[Strazdas]

Sigh. just need to have yet another 3rd party software to circumvent this, which btw is completely legal. this is as bad as the audio files in the 90s where they would need to "authenticate online" and they couldnt because the online servers were down so the music you bought cannot be played. that is, unless you used a player that didnt support the authentication process so then you would just be listening to music like normal files.

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.

this. so much this. people wil lread the headline and go on a rampage but they really should read this post first.

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.

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.

Geez, do you guys have to use intentionally misleading headlines for all your articles? I really doubt it brings more traffic to the site.

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.

In most any other circumstance, this would be when I switch providers, since I'm vehemently against DRM of any kind.

but there really is no alternative though, considering that all the main competitors already support this encryption.

Well, there's always Chrome.
I, for one, welcome our Google overlords.

you do realize that google is the one pushing for this implementation and its already implemented in chrome, right?

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.

as if ripping low quality internet streams was anything to brag about. especially when high quality downloads are both easier and, well, higher quality.

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.

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.

Also if you think it has never negativelly effected a consumer you must have never used Adobe products.

Whew, we can deny it permission? Done deal. Guess I'll stop downloading Chrome now...

why would you download chrome? chrome has supported this ever since its release. google is the one pushing for this DRM.

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.

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:
1. due to need of third party encryption your machine will have to process far more, meaning old decides will have hard time, some dedicated boxes may be completely phased out with this change.
2. any bugs in the third party code will negatively effect your experience.
3. this becomes standard for the industry meaning more items you buy and yet gain no ownership (not legal, but corporations never cared).

Its not like anyone want to download things from netflix. not at stream quality. then again there are people that watch camrips so i guess some people may want to do it.

HDCP encryption on HDMI device is the nubmer one reason for problems with console video capture and was ousted by new generation as thing that causes a lot of problems with no postive benefit.

 

[dyre]

Geez, do you guys have to use intentionally misleading headlines for all your articles? I really doubt it brings more traffic to the site.

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.

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.

 

[Riverwolf]

but there really is no alternative though, considering that all the main competitors already support this encryption.

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.

I didn't mean I'd switch over to Chrome or Safari. (Internet Explorer doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.)

 

[ntfwc]

Netflix has been available on Firefox for years, why this sudden need to add DRM?

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.

Wait, so what does this DRM actually do? And what does it do with the other internet browsers?

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.

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.

Not really sure what advantage this gives the content providers over the current situation. I suppose since it is going to be a standard, they won't be developing for third-party systems like Flash or Silverlight. So that could have its advantages in licensing and such.

Overall it is still rather pointless. No matter what steps it takes to get there, anything you send to a "monitor" or "speakers" can be recorded.

EDIT: grammar, clarity

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Also if my permission is required then permission not granted.

Hope you don't want to use Netflix or its contemporaries, because that's what this is for.

I watch Netflix on my Wii, since Silverlight stopped working properly, so I don't really care.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

Ads, well yeah. I was going to move to Chrome when the ads started.

But the DRM being implemented is basically a package to decrypt certain streaming content so that users don't just rip it.
(well, more accurately, what they do rip isn't viewable without being decrypted)

It will be handily defeated like all DRM in due time, I expect.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

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.

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.

Also, even assuming it is being used, you're basically saying that since a plugin was able to resize the youtube player after being unintentionally broken by updates a plugin could be made to circumvent the DRM. That's two completely separate and unrelated things and this argument makes literally no sense at all.

Also if you think it has never negativelly effected a consumer you must have never used Adobe products.

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]

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.

you clicked on the link. ads loaded. you clicked on the comments. ads loaded. you commented. ads loaded. all those ads bring escapist money.

but there really is no alternative though, considering that all the main competitors already support this encryption.

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.

I didn't mean I'd switch over to Chrome or Safari. (Internet Explorer doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.)

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.

Also if you think it has never negativelly effected a consumer you must have never used Adobe products.

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.

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]

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.

Oh alright, I didn't read the bottom part of your post since it was addressed to somebody else.

So, for the first part I'm almost certain you're exaggerating the processing power needed for this. You won't need a new computer to watch Netflix and you won't have to wait more. Hell, it might even wear less on your computer since it's built right into the browser and you don't have to go through Silverlight

The third one is irrelevant. There is no decay of ownership because there never was ownership to begin with services like Netflix. When you pay for Netflix, you don't own the movies, you're paying to be allowed to stream them via their service. Stop paying, or hell for whatever reason they choose, they can cut you off at any time. This isn't some shady stuff like Steam where it's "you totally own them (except you kinda don't)", you very blatantly don't.

So the only thing I can agree with is third-party bugs may be an issue. But in that case, you have no issues with the DRM itself just with the way it's implemented. Any major bugs will eventually get patched out as it's in the company's best interest to have their security software work correctly.

And about the streaming thing, Netflix streams in 1080p HD I believe. And they're rolling out full 4K streaming in a couple of months. I don't know what you mean by "stream quality".

 

[RandV80]

A year or two ago my girlfriend needed me to download some youtube video's for her, she uses Chrome so I downloaded an extension an no problem. A few months ago same request, as she told me the download plugin wasn't working. I searched for a new one and... absolutely nothing, they were all completely gone. Went back to my PC with Firefox, and no problem. Found a bunch of extensions, tried one out, and downloaded what she needed without any problems.

So does this have something to do with the DRM mentioned in the article?

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Safari is only alive because it's the default browser for Apple products.

I think the basic functions of the Firefox-derivatives are sufficient to provide for most people who'd use them, and anyone familiar with Firefox should feel right at home, since as far as I can tell, addon compatibility is really high.

And I don't know about the ads; I keep the new tab page blank, anyway, since I don't need it.

 

[dyre]

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.

you clicked on the link. ads loaded. you clicked on the comments. ads loaded. you commented. ads loaded. all those ads bring escapist money.

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.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Another victory of not reading the article at all.

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.

 

[Magmarock]

I don't understand what this means exactly, what content will be locked away?

 

[Icehearted]

I remember when Firefox was new and unpopular and it took years to attain even a small percentage of the market alongside IE and Netscape. At around 2.4 it was really getting it's groove, and he period thereafter, though fraught with missteps saw Firefox become the leader in web browsing and a favorite among professionals and home users alike.

I mention this for two reasons:
Firefox has gotten perhaps a little too large, making them both powerful and apt to manipulative tactics by the powerful that wish to exploit it.
Firefox, because of it's large market share, was faced with a choice (at least on the surface) to serve their users and stand up for their ideology or kowtow to media powers. The former would have meant a fight of sorts, or perhaps only passive protest, but I believe in the end there would have been a backing down or compromise as long as users were willing to exercise principle and discipline. The latter means we have what we see now, an open source browser caving in. It's a trickle of control that could grow very rapidly, because if the media industry has shown us anything it's that paranoia and overreaction are a favorite approach.

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.

Not that I mean to be dramatic.

 

[nevarran]

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.

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.
It would've been cool to see them making a stand, but they would've lost a serious chunk of their market-share.

 

[JET1971]

Nobody pirates Hulu or Netflix, seriously nobody. Adding the DRM to the browser hurts only legitimate customers to those services because the pirates will not add the DRM to the pirated copies they have been getting for years without Hulu or Netflix. And Hulu??? Pirated shows are released way before Hulu does so that service is a bad joke to any pirates.

Worst part, DRM never did any good for games and gamers have seen some of the worst draconian DRM. Now gamers get to watch mainstream entertainment get raked over them coals. Both sad and pathetic attempts to stop something they could do quite easily by making it more accessible and cheaper.

 

[Teh_Moose]

Firefox could just release a DRM-free version of their browser separate to the "official" one for open source purposes.