DRM Is Coming To Firefox

Azuaron

New member
Mar 17, 2010
621
0
0
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!

PhoenixUp said:
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

New member
Mar 30, 2009
1,649
0
0
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

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Phrozenflame500 said:
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.

dyre said:
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

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Strazdas said:
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.

Strazdas said:
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.

Strazdas said:
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

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Phrozenflame500 said:
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

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Strazdas said:
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

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Phrozenflame500 said:
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

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
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
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
RandV80 said:
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?
No. That's because Google's terms of service do not allow plug-ins to rip YouTube videos on their own browser. Google had probably just decided to remove all those plug-ins from their store (but I think they can be downloaded and installed manually). But other browsers like Firefox and Opera don't have any restrictions so the plug-ins stayed. Since the new Opera is based on Chrome, the old YouTube ripping plug-ins are available for it