5 ms·

You'd rather have plugins than streaming services that just work? Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, A

You'd rather have plugins than streaming services that just work? Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, or any of the other services that have exploded since EME. And since they're presumably wrong to want DRM, tell me you also don't pirate their content.

mmastrac 4y ago
> You'd rather have plugins than streaming services that just work? Yes. > Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, or any of the other services that have exploded since EME. No, I'm still a happy Netflix subscriber. And they would have done just fine in a plugin model. > And since they're presumably wrong to want DRM, tell me you also don't pirate their content. Your logic is just so bizarre here I won't bother with a response.
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  > No, I'm still a happy Netflix subscriber. And they would have done just fine in a plugin model. Wouldn't that include disadvantages for the users? Plugins are usually a black box, working independent and lacking any way for customizing. The solution now is narrow enough that customization is possible for users on the harmless parts, without touching the DRM-part. By which I mean things like play-settings, the interface, behavior. There are many different types of extensions for changing the user experience on Netflix and such, stuff which did not exist for Flash&Co.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    I spent years authoring plugins. Anybody who cares about end-use security should want plugins out as quickly and completely as possible. They literally ran in the same process as the browser. Full access to the memory itself. No security at all, and many of them were closed source. The DRM standard was a strict improvement over the status quo.
zozbot234 4y ago
EME only works with proprietary plugins anyway. A <video> tag with EME is functionally indistinguishable from a fully proprietary <embed>. But the W3C decided to endorse EME as the "open" solution for completely spurious reasons.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  8.1 CDM constraints in the EME is a pretty big deal relative to the plugin standard that hooks the <embed> tag. Plugins generally ran unsandboxed in the browsers' memory and therefore were a massive security hole. EME unblocked killing Flash and made the web more secure.
  - mmastrac 4y ago
    > EME unblocked killing Flash and made the web more secure. Neither of these are correct. Flash was dead on mobile long before EME, and the code running behind EMEs is an unaudited, black box (and having worked on decompiling the Mediatek secure enclave code, it's absolutely horrendous). The only thing I'd consider to be marginally secure is Firefox's sandboxed DRM provider, and that could easily be a vendored extension on the window/media object.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > the code running behind EMEs is an unaudited, black box It's an unaudited black box that isn't running in the same process as the browser itself. It can certainly do risky things in that context, but one of those things isn't "scrape the user's bank password directly out of the RAM it's sharing with the tab showing the bank's web site."
      - mmastrac 4y ago
        I'm not going to defend plugins as they were (a plugin-based DRM solution would not necessarily rely on the <embed> tags), but they were migrating to run in sandboxes before flash died. Chrome shipped flash-as-locked-down-process from early in its history. EME code, however, can have deep hooks into the OS, especially on mobile.
account42 4y ago
> You'd rather have plugins than streaming services that just work? Yes. > Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, or any of the other services that have exploded since EME. I don't. > And since they're presumably wrong to want DRM, tell me you also don't pirate their content. Not since I got out of school. But it's also irrelevant as file sharing is not overly affected by DRM since it only needs to be stripped once.
phpisthebest 4y ago
I dont consume any of them in a Web Browser. I watch them from a Roku Device on an Actual TV, where TV and Movies should be consumed, not in a web browser
mattl 4y ago
I'd much rather have plugins. I don't want to watch any of the services you mentioned on my computer. I have a dedicated hardware device for watching these things, attached to my TV.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Plugins are a massive security hole.
  - mattl 4y ago
    Make a native app for Windows and Mac or something then... keep that stuff out of the browser.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Why? The browser is a far more convenient deployment solution for the end-user: high-security via sandboxes and partitioning by default, temporary, no installation step required. Are we pro-web here? Because if the answer to hard problems is "make it native then," we might as well declare the HTML stack a dead-end technology.
      - mattl 4y ago
        I'm pro-web. I'm also pro-watching TV things on a TV.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        I don't own a TV and I don't know what a "TV thing" is. I do have a pretty large monitor on a wall patched into a desktop PC via HDMI though.
        mattl 4y ago
        If I want to watch Netflix, etc I watch them on a TV with a dedicated remote. I’m not watching those things on a desktop computer attached to a big screen.
blendergeek 4y ago
> Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, or any of the other services that have exploded since EME. I can oppose DRM and still (regretfully) use DRM'd streaming services. DRM was not necessary for any of those services. Piracy still exists despite DRM. DRM is about controlling the end-user experience, not preventing piracy.

mmastrac 4y ago

> You'd rather have plugins than streaming services that just work? Yes. > Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, or any of the other services that have exploded since EME. No, I'm still a happy Netflix subscriber. And they would have done just fine in a plugin model. > And since they're presumably wrong to want DRM, tell me you also don't pirate their content. Your logic is just so bizarre here I won't bother with a response.

PurpleRamen 4y ago
> No, I'm still a happy Netflix subscriber. And they would have done just fine in a plugin model. Wouldn't that include disadvantages for the users? Plugins are usually a black box, working independent and lacking any way for customizing. The solution now is narrow enough that customization is possible for users on the harmless parts, without touching the DRM-part. By which I mean things like play-settings, the interface, behavior. There are many different types of extensions for changing the user experience on Netflix and such, stuff which did not exist for Flash&Co.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  I spent years authoring plugins. Anybody who cares about end-use security should want plugins out as quickly and completely as possible. They literally ran in the same process as the browser. Full access to the memory itself. No security at all, and many of them were closed source. The DRM standard was a strict improvement over the status quo.

zozbot234 4y ago

EME only works with proprietary plugins anyway. A <video> tag with EME is functionally indistinguishable from a fully proprietary <embed>. But the W3C decided to endorse EME as the "open" solution for completely spurious reasons.

shadowgovt 4y ago
8.1 CDM constraints in the EME is a pretty big deal relative to the plugin standard that hooks the <embed> tag. Plugins generally ran unsandboxed in the browsers' memory and therefore were a massive security hole. EME unblocked killing Flash and made the web more secure.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  > EME unblocked killing Flash and made the web more secure. Neither of these are correct. Flash was dead on mobile long before EME, and the code running behind EMEs is an unaudited, black box (and having worked on decompiling the Mediatek secure enclave code, it's absolutely horrendous). The only thing I'd consider to be marginally secure is Firefox's sandboxed DRM provider, and that could easily be a vendored extension on the window/media object.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > the code running behind EMEs is an unaudited, black box It's an unaudited black box that isn't running in the same process as the browser itself. It can certainly do risky things in that context, but one of those things isn't "scrape the user's bank password directly out of the RAM it's sharing with the tab showing the bank's web site."
    - mmastrac 4y ago
      I'm not going to defend plugins as they were (a plugin-based DRM solution would not necessarily rely on the <embed> tags), but they were migrating to run in sandboxes before flash died. Chrome shipped flash-as-locked-down-process from early in its history. EME code, however, can have deep hooks into the OS, especially on mobile.

account42 4y ago

> You'd rather have plugins than streaming services that just work? Yes. > Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, or any of the other services that have exploded since EME. I don't. > And since they're presumably wrong to want DRM, tell me you also don't pirate their content. Not since I got out of school. But it's also irrelevant as file sharing is not overly affected by DRM since it only needs to be stripped once.

phpisthebest 4y ago

I dont consume any of them in a Web Browser. I watch them from a Roku Device on an Actual TV, where TV and Movies should be consumed, not in a web browser

mattl 4y ago

I'd much rather have plugins. I don't want to watch any of the services you mentioned on my computer. I have a dedicated hardware device for watching these things, attached to my TV.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Plugins are a massive security hole.
- mattl 4y ago
  Make a native app for Windows and Mac or something then... keep that stuff out of the browser.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Why? The browser is a far more convenient deployment solution for the end-user: high-security via sandboxes and partitioning by default, temporary, no installation step required. Are we pro-web here? Because if the answer to hard problems is "make it native then," we might as well declare the HTML stack a dead-end technology.
    - mattl 4y ago
      I'm pro-web. I'm also pro-watching TV things on a TV.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        I don't own a TV and I don't know what a "TV thing" is. I do have a pretty large monitor on a wall patched into a desktop PC via HDMI though.
        mattl 4y ago
        If I want to watch Netflix, etc I watch them on a TV with a dedicated remote. I’m not watching those things on a desktop computer attached to a big screen.

blendergeek 4y ago

> Please tell me that since you're against DRM you don't use Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, or any of the other services that have exploded since EME. I can oppose DRM and still (regretfully) use DRM'd streaming services. DRM was not necessary for any of those services. Piracy still exists despite DRM. DRM is about controlling the end-user experience, not preventing piracy.