It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM).
> Firefox users would need to use another browser every time they want to watch a controlled video
Irrelevant for many users of DRM-free OSes (like Linux) who won't have any DRM backend for EME anyway. I.e. it really sounds like "users would need another OS".
> Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content.
I hope there will be a switch for disabling the whole EME altogether. Even better, I'd prefer builds of Firefox free of any DRM sickness. It's very unfortunate that this garbage is finding its way into the open source browser which always stood for the users' rights more than many others.
Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.
The only way it would be an issue is if you're trying to rip the stream. But if you've paid the provider for streaming only, rather than to download and keep a copy, then that's also not really degrading the quality of service. Similarly, the prohibition on bringing a video camera in to record cinema screenings does not reduce the quality of the cinema experience.
In general, I don't really see a problem with DRM that is temporally bound to the moment of consumption.
So: NO.
How hard would it be to make an app that made this easy for non-technical users, without DRM?
Edit: To be clear, I'm saying that people will pay for a legal streaming service even if they could rip it off for free.
It isn't hard to screen-record, and it never will be. As long as that exists, what's the point of DRM anyway?
Now let the market decide.
I get that slippery slope arguments are often problematic, but DRM has always been something where we've slid down as much as is allowable as soon as it is allowable. The broadcast flag, Macrovision on DVDs, SCMS, Cinavia, etc. are just a few examples of this.
Highly recommended reading is also this post, which discusses how Mozilla will implement EME: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
I also don't feel the 'open source sandbox' will be permissible by most developers of CDMs. My opinion is that mozilla will waste countless cycles implementing EME that won't be acceptable to the content mafia. Adobe is not the only player in this space.
And I don't know how you educate folks. These are the same people who would shrug their shoulders and say "So what," about NSA wiretapping. "I don't have anything to hide."
There is no thought given to the possibility of abuse in the future once these rules or systems are entrenched and standardized.
And now I officially sound like RMS-lite ;)
Do you have any other sources that indicate this push? Seems a possibility but it's the first I've heard of this kind of lockdown. Seems like the cost would greatly outweigh the benefits...
This matches what has happened in practice over the years. Ads and entertainment have been packaged up in Flash with DRM. EME paves that cowpath.
Why not have this downloaded upon first use, the way that Flash and Silverlight have been?
Also, isn't this what users on many Linux distros (e.g. Iceweasel on Debian) will have to do anyway?
That's actually what we're looking at doing: the sandbox would be in there, harmless, by default, but the actual crypto module (the "CDM") would download from Adobe upon first need. (And they have committed to support the platforms we support, Linux included.) The exact UI is still up in the air. I could imagine us using the opportunity to display a message to educate users as to what DRM is and whose phone number to call if they don't like it. ;-)
Please do this!
I understand that Mozilla has been backed into a corner on this, so I get why you'll be adding this (much as I wish you didn't have to). But that doesn't mean forgetting about the issue entirely.
I wouldn't ask this of any of the other major browser vendors, but I like to hold Mozilla/Firefox to a higher standard. :)
In concept, I think it's not too much different from server-side website code being mostly closed source. The only difference is that this component happens to be running on your computer.
Also there is prior form for this in similarly open systems, e.g. tainted modules in the Linux kernel, which seem to have turned out okay.
At first glance this may seem pretty "reasonable", but it really isn't. It's like putting a backdoor in every Intel chip (such as say through TPM 2.0), and then just telling people "look, if you don't want the backdoor activated, you can disable it - Now here's the list of 10 instructions to do so..."
It's an illusion of choice, and nothing more. While some may be content that this option exists, the reality is that DRM is now getting pushed to billions of users out there through the web, as the default for soon most video platforms.
I don't fully blame Mozilla for this. In fact I blame Netflix first, and Google and Microsoft second. This Gang of Three is the one that made it happen in the first place. But I am saying that Mozilla's attempts to alleviate our concerns aren't very effective or particularly useful.
We don't get DRM-free copies of all our music from Spotify, nor should we reasonably expect that. We are subscribing to a service that allows us access to music so long as we are paying customers. Why shouldn't there be light-touch DRM in place to keep us from flagrantly abusing the system and retaining all copies of the music after if/when we cancel our subscription?
Should we reasonably expect to be able to keep a copy of a television show that we streamed from abc.go.com? ABC makes far less money from showing us ads than if we purchased a copy from iTunes. They do this, part and parcel, because we don't get to keep a copy of the show after we're done watching.
From my perspective, DRM has no place in a "sales" relationship. We should have full usage rights whenever we buy a book, movie, or song.
DRM should exist for subscription services and ad-supported streaming. DRM should essentially serve to enforce the social and legal contract that says we are "borrowing" the books, movies, or songs for long as we have that relationship. Once that relationship is over, we can't use that stuff any more.
I suggest that we create an open-source DRM system designed to fairly protect the content creator in cases where the audience is "borrowing" the creative work (whether ad-supported or subscription).
Why not? I use a number of internet "radio" stations that send DRM free mp3 streams to my computer (complete with ads). Some even have paid accounts that stream at a higher bitrate.
The only reason Spotify can't do that is because the recording studios act like frightened little children, scared that someone is going to take their toys away. They've (somewhat successfully) planted the meme that DRM is required or the evil pirates will just steal everything and they'll go out of business. But I just don't buy it.
Mozilla, please remove this anti-feature. Do the right thing.
Drm is the opposite of serving users. By definition. The "challenge" is actually to select which privileged users you still want to serve in spite of the not-serving default.
Edit: Ah, I see. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi... clarifies the intent to remove plugins from the web altogether.
