DRM Is Coming To Firefox

[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.

 

[Azuaron]

Most important part of this article: Mozilla has decided to implement standards. When browsers go "rogue" and start doing their own thing (I'm looking at you, Microsoft), it's bad for everyone. Everyone. But especially me, as I'm a web developer. But everyone also. Let's imagine a world where Firefox didn't implement this out of the box:

Want to watch Netflix? Install this plugin. Want to watch Hulu? Another plugin. Youtube? Plugin. Smaller video site that looks like it's probably okay? Plugin, which installs malware on your computer.

Then, think about how those plugins got made. Netlfix/Hulu/etc. each now have to have a small team of programmers devoted to keeping their plugins up-to-date. Higher costs mean higher prices; rate hikes across the board. And then dogs and cats will start living together, total chaos!

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

Did you miss the part where Google (and Microsoft) have already implemented it (or at least agreed to implement it)?

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Well, there's me surprised that Netflix was even accessible through a browser. I always assumed it just used its own standalone program. In fact, why doesn't it? Why wouldn't it? Is there some pressing need for it to be run from a browser?

 

[Strazdas]

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".

yes, most people wont need new compuiter to wathc netflix. people who can "Barelly run it" would though. and while thnkafully there is less and less people with computers that old, they still exist.

Yes, there is no ownership with netflix. There is ownership with download services.Netflix is like a cable TV that lets you choose what you want to watch, incidentaly its equaly poor quality of stream as well (which is my main reason for pushing downloads - the video quality).

youtube also streams in 1080HD. that is, they are streaming their compressed video which has lower bitrate than a half-decent 720p video you would download. and the lack of quality shows. especially if you got something with little/no compression to compare to. i upload videos to youtube sometimes, and the difference between what i sent them and what the result is in quality is staggering. netflix works the same way. thier problem isnt space but rather ability to stream to people with slow internet. too bad everyone with a decent internet has to suffer for it.

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.

thats the thing though. you wouldnt have spent time posting in OT if the headline was neutral. i know i wouldnt have. i would have looked on the headline, thought "ok" and moved onto reading next one. i dont know about you, but i dont click to comment every story they report on, and when on main page title is the only thing you see before you click.

if existing members stay here more, post more, they generate more ads as well. look at this thread, i have already visited it 4 times, versus 0 if the title would have been normal. so they are already earning ad revenue for 4 clicks at least because of the title.

also do not underestimate new people. i see a lot of escpaist results in my google searches. it may be google personalization stuff of course, but it does come up. and sensationalist titles attract traffic. For example couple days ago Jim named one of his youtube videos "Social justice warriors" and then lamented that half the people watching it appears to be not the regular viewers but people from outside coming in just because of the title. the video was 47 seconds long and didnt really show anything special. yet it generated a lot of new traffic.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

yes, most people wont need new compuiter to wathc netflix. people who can "Barelly run it" would though. and while thnkafully there is less and less people with computers that old, they still exist.

Dude you're like really overestimating the amount of CPU power needed to run Netflix. Like, a $30 CPU could stream Netflix fairly well. Mobile devices can stream Netflix with vastly inferior CPUs. Not to mention as I mentioned it's likely the power needed will go down since you're essentially using the same type of DRM that Silverlight already does but just integrates it into the browser itself instead of a separate plugin.

Yes, there is no ownership with netflix. There is ownership with download services.Netflix is like a cable TV that lets you choose what you want to watch, incidentaly its equaly poor quality of stream as well (which is my main reason for pushing downloads - the video quality).

And this DRM doesn't affect download services, so that's irrelevant.

youtube also streams in 1080HD. that is, they are streaming their compressed video which has lower bitrate than a half-decent 720p video you would download. and the lack of quality shows. especially if you got something with little/no compression to compare to. i upload videos to youtube sometimes, and the difference between what i sent them and what the result is in quality is staggering. netflix works the same way. thier problem isnt space but rather ability to stream to people with slow internet. too bad everyone with a decent internet has to suffer for it.

Whhaaaaattttttttt????

Have you used Netflix ever? They've already solved the "some people have slow internet" problem by dynamically adjusting the playback resolution depending on your internet speed. You can clearly tell when your internet speeds take a dive because Netflix just makes everything pixely instead of forcing buffering.

And while it's true that some Netflix sources have sometimes has compression artifacts this problem still would exist on downloaded copies since you still have to compress the video file to stop it from being hugely bloated in size.

Not to mention this is irrelevant, just because pirate's would be forced to deal with some compression artifacts doesn't change the fact they still would rip it and thus justify the DRM's existence.

 

[Strazdas]

Dude you're like really overestimating the amount of CPU power needed to run Netflix. Like, a $30 CPU could stream Netflix fairly well. Mobile devices can stream Netflix with vastly inferior CPUs. Not to mention as I mentioned it's likely the power needed will go down since you're essentially using the same type of DRM that Silverlight already does but just integrates it into the browser itself instead of a separate plugin.

a 30 dollar modern CPU will run netflix. a 7 year old CPU will struggle. im not talking about new computers. im talking about people with old computers. for example my dad is still runnign athlon XP that is 11 years old. it struggles with youtube.

you do have ap oint with silverlight already bringing that load, and thus it may have no effect, true.

Whhaaaaattttttttt????

Have you used Netflix ever? They've already solved the "some people have slow internet" problem by dynamically adjusting the playback resolution depending on your internet speed. You can clearly tell when your internet speeds take a dive because Netflix just makes everything pixely instead of forcing buffering.

And while it's true that some Netflix sources have sometimes has compression artifacts this problem still would exist on downloaded copies since you still have to compress the video file to stop it from being hugely bloated in size.

Not to mention this is irrelevant, just because pirate's would be forced to deal with some compression artifacts doesn't change the fact they still would rip it and thus justify the DRM's existence.

dynamic playback resolution is evil. often their own servers hick up and downsample resolution.

and i know my internet well, it does not take dives. do you know what kind of internet it would require to stream uncompressed video at 1080p? 240mbps. while the comrpession codecs definatelly got better, its nowhere close to looknig like that when you look at their stream.
now, some compression is fine. 3000kbps bitrate compression is not fine. its horrible. its something you use for 480p when you want nice looks, not for 1080p.
oh and i have no problem with downloading a 18 GB 1080p movie. they are not going to let me stream at that quality now are they.

but pirates dont need to deal with netflix. when they got better quality sources ripping netflix is pointless. in fact i only know of a single pirate release that ripped a stream, and that was Caprica, a BSG spinoff that was freely available on their website (but region locked). all others are DVD/blueray/download.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

dynamic playback resolution is evil. often their own servers hick up and downsample resolution.

and i know my internet well, it does not take dives. do you know what kind of internet it would require to stream uncompressed video at 1080p? 240mbps. while the comrpession codecs definatelly got better, its nowhere close to looknig like that when you look at their stream.
now, some compression is fine. 3000kbps bitrate compression is not fine. its horrible. its something you use for 480p when you want nice looks, not for 1080p.
oh and i have no problem with downloading a 18 GB 1080p movie. they are not going to let me stream at that quality now are they.

but pirates dont need to deal with netflix. when they got better quality sources ripping netflix is pointless. in fact i only know of a single pirate release that ripped a stream, and that was Caprica, a BSG spinoff that was freely available on their website (but region locked). all others are DVD/blueray/download.

I don't have much personal experience with video codecs so I'll take your word that it's horrible. But regarding the compression thing, a good portion of the population is unwilling or unable to download large files like that so there's still an audience for streaming compressed video's until internet speed's increase.

I'm kinda skeptical on the "pirate's don't need to deal with Netflix" thing, sometimes Blue Rays aren't available for a long time after the release of a TV show episode. DVD's will almost certainly be a lower quality as well as be released later and DRM-less compression-less direct downloads probably won't be available. While I'll contend Netflix wouldn't be a first choice for pirate rips it isn't not a choice at all.

However we're getting away from the original topic. The point is, as I've stated, this DRM is fairly unobtrusive and blocks an action that (according to you) wasn't even being used in the first place. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Strazdas]

I don't have much personal experience with video codecs so I'll take your word that it's horrible. But regarding the compression thing, a good portion of the population is unwilling or unable to download large files like that so there's still an audience for streaming compressed video's until internet speed's increase.

I'm kinda skeptical on the "pirate's don't need to deal with Netflix" thing, sometimes Blue Rays aren't available for a long time after the release of a TV show episode. DVD's will almost certainly be a lower quality as well as be released later and DRM-less compression-less direct downloads probably won't be available. While I'll contend Netflix wouldn't be a first choice for pirate rips it isn't not a choice at all.

However we're getting away from the original topic. The point is, as I've stated, this DRM is fairly unobtrusive and blocks an action that (according to you) wasn't even being used in the first place. I don't see what the problem is.

there is an aiduence for that, does not mean its the only audience that is.

Blue rays are not available for TV shows often, but then, neither are the episodes on Netflix. In such cases its the HD TV channels that get ripped apperently. Though of course of Cable is dieing that may not be an option at some point. DVDs are lower quality, yes, which is why they are used for low quality rips only. well than and to get extras.
I do have to agree that there may be situations where Netflix can be attractive. however this does not really prevent them from doing that. they can just record the stream that is coming after it passes the DRM. at worst it would mean that you have to record real-time, but then Netflix should completely loose its skipping functionality.

The problem is that DRM exists. It stands between the service and the costumer. It must do so in order to function. This is a bad thing.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

What do they expect to stop? Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to copy videos from a streaming media service and there wasn't a plug-in or app to do it, I'd just use video capture software like Fraps and quickly edit it with whatever free software I can find. But like everyone already said, a plug-in or app to piece the encrypted videos back together would be trivial