3 ms·

Not this hyperbole again.. Browser interfaces for integration with third party security mechanisms is actually a good thing. There are advantages to having cus

by jiggy2011 13y ago

Not this hyperbole again.. Browser interfaces for integration with third party security mechanisms is actually a good thing. There are advantages to having custom client side encryption/decryptions schemes that don't have to live within the scary execution environment that is the browser but can be used to augment web page content. This does nothing to force web users into accepting DRM. If you don't want DRM, don't use services from organisations which enforce it and don't install any of their stuff. Your browser will still work. Hollywood wants people it's products to be used via DRM schemes. This will happen whether it is via a web page, a standalone application or dedicated set top box.

pyalot2 13y ago
And if you want to use netflix, just use something else than Linux and/or Firefox. It's perfectly fine that competing OS vendors (like Apple and Microsoft) make linux less attractive by way of a standard. It's also perfectly fine that competing browser vendors (like Apple, Microsoft and Google) make firefox less attractive by standard. In principle it's always perfectly fine if monopoly holders band together to exclude the competition. We're all down with that. Ohyeah, IE6 was so good, why do we need anything else?
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Netflix have never been especially interested in selling to Linux users. Whether or you have this specification is immaterial. If they can't have this, the alternative from their point of view is not stripping the DRM. The solution is standalone player applications or something else.
  - pyalot2 13y ago
    And now netflix is also not interested to be streaming to FirefoxOS, Firefox browsers, Opera, Ouya, and upcoming new device from Kickstarter, and so forth.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      It's always been an issue that they are not interested in minority platforms, nothing here changes that. Why do you think they will no longer support firefox browsers? I can't find any source for this.
      - K0nserv 13y ago
        As I understand it Mozilla is very reluctant to implementing any DRM into HTML5 videos and thus Netflix cannot support them. EDIT: They can't implement it because it would conflict with their license, thanks pyalot2 for the correction.
        pyalot2 13y ago
        Mozilla isn't reluctant. They can't implement the DRM because the license to redistribute the proprietary DRM plugin is such that they couldn't offer their browser under the license they've been offering it.
        jiggy2011 13y ago
        Mozilla doesn't have to license anything. All mozilla has to do is implement the relevant part of the standard. The DRM software itself is provided by a third party, the browser simply provides a mechanism for communication. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  I want to apologize for downvoting you, I originally missed the sarcasm. :(
- mtgx 13y ago
  Is it? It seems another way to restrict competition, just like Amazon restricted competition through DRM for their e-books. Imagine if you could take your Kindles and read them on other apps ("hacking" them and converting to epub doesn't count). What if Amazon goes out of business 10 years from now? Tough luck, you can't read your books anymore.
rurounijones 13y ago
"We are sorry but to view this webpage you need the following browser DRM plugins: "Microsoft Secure Video version 1.5 (Windows 8.1 only)" "Infowarx Secure Web Photo JPG Manager (win32, mac 10.7)" "Adobe Secure PDF PRO plugin" Thank you for visiting website-of-the-drm-plugin-ip-protecting-fragmented web, have an nice day"
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Is fragmentation to client applications "Install this .msi/ Buy this from the app store to play content" better than fragmentation to browser plugins? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.
  - rurounijones 13y ago
    I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc. App stores etc have never been put forwards as open, free, sharing, compatible etc. By shoe-horning black-box, most likely ill supported (in terms of os compability) proprietary DRM packages into the "open" web they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. "We use simple web browsers etc! (small print: xyz plugins required)" If you want that kind of DRM infested, proprietary stuff then by all means get a desktop / mobile app. Stop trying to infest the "Free and open web". flash was bad enough but at the time there was a good reason for it. There is not now.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      I'm not sure what the definition of an "open" web is here. The web has always supported paywalls and distribution of proprietary software via the SaaS model. This proposal does not make DRM part of the web any more than internet explorer makes windows a part of the web.
    - tzs 13y ago
      > I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc. The web you imagine has not existed for a long time, if it even ever existed. HTTP has from a very early stage, for instance, supported restricting access to resources to authenticated users, so that people could put non-open, non-free, non-shared things on the web.

pyalot2 13y ago

And if you want to use netflix, just use something else than Linux and/or Firefox. It's perfectly fine that competing OS vendors (like Apple and Microsoft) make linux less attractive by way of a standard. It's also perfectly fine that competing browser vendors (like Apple, Microsoft and Google) make firefox less attractive by standard. In principle it's always perfectly fine if monopoly holders band together to exclude the competition. We're all down with that. Ohyeah, IE6 was so good, why do we need anything else?

jiggy2011 13y ago
Netflix have never been especially interested in selling to Linux users. Whether or you have this specification is immaterial. If they can't have this, the alternative from their point of view is not stripping the DRM. The solution is standalone player applications or something else.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  And now netflix is also not interested to be streaming to FirefoxOS, Firefox browsers, Opera, Ouya, and upcoming new device from Kickstarter, and so forth.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    It's always been an issue that they are not interested in minority platforms, nothing here changes that. Why do you think they will no longer support firefox browsers? I can't find any source for this.
    - K0nserv 13y ago
      As I understand it Mozilla is very reluctant to implementing any DRM into HTML5 videos and thus Netflix cannot support them. EDIT: They can't implement it because it would conflict with their license, thanks pyalot2 for the correction.
      - pyalot2 13y ago
        Mozilla isn't reluctant. They can't implement the DRM because the license to redistribute the proprietary DRM plugin is such that they couldn't offer their browser under the license they've been offering it.
        jiggy2011 13y ago
        Mozilla doesn't have to license anything. All mozilla has to do is implement the relevant part of the standard. The DRM software itself is provided by a third party, the browser simply provides a mechanism for communication. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
steveklabnik 13y ago
I want to apologize for downvoting you, I originally missed the sarcasm. :(
mtgx 13y ago
Is it? It seems another way to restrict competition, just like Amazon restricted competition through DRM for their e-books. Imagine if you could take your Kindles and read them on other apps ("hacking" them and converting to epub doesn't count). What if Amazon goes out of business 10 years from now? Tough luck, you can't read your books anymore.

rurounijones 13y ago

"We are sorry but to view this webpage you need the following browser DRM plugins: "Microsoft Secure Video version 1.5 (Windows 8.1 only)" "Infowarx Secure Web Photo JPG Manager (win32, mac 10.7)" "Adobe Secure PDF PRO plugin" Thank you for visiting website-of-the-drm-plugin-ip-protecting-fragmented web, have an nice day"

jiggy2011 13y ago
Is fragmentation to client applications "Install this .msi/ Buy this from the app store to play content" better than fragmentation to browser plugins? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc. App stores etc have never been put forwards as open, free, sharing, compatible etc. By shoe-horning black-box, most likely ill supported (in terms of os compability) proprietary DRM packages into the "open" web they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. "We use simple web browsers etc! (small print: xyz plugins required)" If you want that kind of DRM infested, proprietary stuff then by all means get a desktop / mobile app. Stop trying to infest the "Free and open web". flash was bad enough but at the time there was a good reason for it. There is not now.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    I'm not sure what the definition of an "open" web is here. The web has always supported paywalls and distribution of proprietary software via the SaaS model. This proposal does not make DRM part of the web any more than internet explorer makes windows a part of the web.
  - tzs 13y ago
    > I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc. The web you imagine has not existed for a long time, if it even ever existed. HTTP has from a very early stage, for instance, supported restricting access to resources to authenticated users, so that people could put non-open, non-free, non-shared things on the web.