7 ms·

I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if y

I'm curious as to why anyone would want this? I guess if you consider the new DRM integration a potential attack vector it removes that possibility. But, if you're going to install this in the first place you won't be consuming DRM content - so you probably won't even be visiting the sites that have it anyway and using the feature.

TD-Linux 11y ago
The DRM plugin is downloaded and installed automatically with the "normal" version of Firefox. So if you don't want to be downloading purposely-obfuscated proprietary Adobe binaries, you have to install this version. Also, by default, EME activates on any webpage that requests it.
- cpeterso 11y ago
  If you disable EME (in the Firefox Preferences menu by unchecking the "Play DRM content" checkbox), Firefox will delete the Adobe CDM binary if it has been installed. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
  - rr56 11y ago
    I bet "how many people downloaded the DRM-less version" is an important statistic for Mozilla - Having FF in the middle of an automatic update, I'll be getting the other version however, and I wonder if having disabled this feature, will the browser call home to count towards it...
    - reubenmorais 11y ago
      > I wonder if having disabled this feature, will the browser call home to count towards it... It will not. Currently the only telemetry related to EME is the VIDEO_EME_PLAY_SUCCESS histogram, which counts successes/failures of playback. It's only enabled then EME itself is enabled, though.
  - eps 11y ago
    Wait a second. Doesn't EME imply a kernel component? To safeguard the encryption keys and to generally complicate an access to the raw media? If so, does it mean that this Firefox update touches the kernel?
    - reubenmorais 11y ago
      It does not imply a kernel component. From the point of view of the browser, EME is an API to a sandboxed binary (the CDM) that decrypts video frames and sends them back to the browser, which then presents them to the user. The CDM might use kernel facilities for storing encryption keys.
      - eps 11y ago
        Bad wording. Does this update add Adobe's stuff into kernel or does it not (e.g. if Adobe is just piggy-backing on Windows PMP)? Can anyone from Mozilla comment on this? This is a principal question, because if there is an Adobe's kernel DRM driver in this update, then it makes sense to go with the "EME-free" update instead of adding and then, hopefully, removing 3rd party junk from the kernel as per that Mozilla KB linked elsewhere in this thread.
        cpeterso 11y ago
        I work at Mozilla on the EME team. Neither Firefox nor the Adobe CDM install any kernel code. The Adobe CDM is, conceptually, the Flash Player's DRM code repackaged to work with Firefox's CDM API. And the Flash Player doesn't need to install new kernel drivers. Studios have different DRM requirements for video quality levels like HD, non-HD, "Studio HD", and "Ultra HD". For higher quality video, studios might require secure hardware path. Even this level, AFAIU, doesn't require new kernel drivers because Windows already has APIs for this.
        eps 11y ago
        Thank you.
jordigh 11y ago
Although I am sure the situation is more subtle than reported, I am reminded of this old ELER: http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/taking-freedom-further http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/taking-freedom-furth... "What better way to justify the proprietary bits of [Firefox] than a practically stooge [browser] to point at whenever we're questioned!" All this has happened before. All this will happen again.
- sp332 11y ago
  "We see DRM in general as profoundly hostile to all three of: users, open source software, and browser vendors who aren’t also DRM vendors." https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/ https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/ "We very much want to see a different system. Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point. In the past Firefox has changed the industry, and we intend to do so again. Today, however, we cannot cause the change we want regarding DRM." https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challen... "this is a radical, disheartening development in the history of the organisation" http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-cl... So no, it's not really more subtle than reported. This is Firefox fighting and losing.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    This is Firefox giving up without even attempting a fight.
    - sp332 11y ago
      Just because you haven't been paying attention doesn't mean they haven't been fighting.
schoen 11y ago
You might worry that you wouldn't notice which sites are using it. Or you might want to send a message to sites, or to Mozilla, that you think DRM is bad and that you don't want to have DRM implementations installed. One of the worst things about each browser vendor's decision to support DRM is that it makes the choice to require DRM less costly for new web sites that are considering it. So even if you think Netflix could never have been budged, random site X might now say "cool, we can control what people can do with video on our site, at a surprisingly low interoperability cost to us!". If you want to avoid that outcome as an end-user, you have to do whatever you can to increase potential DRM adopters' view of the market share they will put at risk.
- superuser2 11y ago
  This end does not seem to be served by niche browsers which will be used only by the EFF-card-carrying subset of the tech community, people who are most able and least ethically inhibited from piracy anyway. This is a good reason to keep the functionality out of mainstream browsers, but it doesn't seem to work if it's just us using deliberately hobbled browsers.
  - pXMzR2A 11y ago
    > EFF-card-carrying subset of the tech community, people who are most able and least ethically inhibited from piracy anyway. Good rhetoric. They are evil because they believe in ethics. Go for it dude, who's holding you!
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    How typical of the DRM/closed-web subset of the tech community to justify their collaboration with accusations of piracy at those of us trying to create a free and open web. Resisting any type of DRM from the very beginning is important, because the fight will be a lot harder once there is an established community of users. Educating people about DRM is hard enough; it is almost impossible when it also requires convincing people to give up some service (i.e. netflix) that they have grown accustomed to. This is the latest battle the ongoing War On General Purpose Computing[1], and a lot of people that should know better are choosing movies and the dream of short-term profits over long-term freedom. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y
bcheung 11y ago
Publishers who want to protect their content against piracy and don't want to use cumbersome expensive solutions. Traditionally DRM has been a hassle for legal users, expensive to publishers, and complex to encode and host video. Having a browser standard would make it convenient to users and publishers.
- schoen 11y ago
  The original commenter was asking why people would want to prevent their browser from having DRM support, rather than why publishers would want DRM. (For DRM opponents, having convenient and standardized DRM is worse in many ways because it is more likely to be adopted in more circumstances.)
  - bcheung 11y ago
    I can't think of a good reason to deliberately remove it from your browser. Why would it be worse if more companies used DRM? I can think of some edge cases on obscure devices or if you are pirate but other than that it seems like legal users would be unaffected and not even notice it.
    - ptx 11y ago
      > it seems like legal users would be unaffected and not even notice it. Yes, just like Sony said in response to the rootkit scandal – "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" DRM is a declaration from the publishers that they distrust you so much that they must be granted absolute control over your machine. You can't retain higher privileges over your own machine than they have, or else you would be able to circumvent their system and it wouldn't work. Why would you trust someone who has declared themselves your enemy to run arbitrary code with root privileges on your machine?
      - bcheung 11y ago
        That highlights the need for standard DRM rather than having each company using their own code that runs on your computer. With a standard DRM solution, the only person you would need to trust is the browser vendor. This seems like a better alternative than having a company force you to use their DRM.
maxerickson 11y ago
There is some back and forth about it in the Firefox 38 story that was on the front page earlier in the day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9532417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9532417 I'm having trouble writing a summary that avoids sarcasm.
nly 11y ago
If you're morally opposed to DRM, then it's a surefire way to ensure you don't unknowingly use a service that requires it, thereby encouraging its proliferation.
jeena 11y ago
Wow, when I clicked to see the comments section here on HN it was kind of the other way around in my head. I thought "Yes! Finally good news from Mozilla!" I don't need this binary blob on my computer and therefor I don't want it because I can never know what it does. Why use Linux if you end up running closed source binary blobs anyway? (I understand that somewhere down there I still am using some propriatary nvidia driver or something but if I can avoid it then I would like to be able to.)
Nursie 11y ago
It will tell me what sites to avoid by failing to work with them.
bcg1 11y ago
Without getting too preachy about DRM itself... the need for computing tools that exist outside of the fictitious corporate-goverment-legal structures dominated by power and money are essential to ensuring human freedom in a digital world. As we choose and are forced to have more of our lives moved into this realm, it becomes more relevant every day. Many people do not care about those things, and prefer Netflix et al over such matters, or perhaps have never looked closely at the issue. Mozilla has (had?) a tradition and reputation for caring about this. I suspect that many of us would prefer them to go even further, such as not implement the feature at all in protest.

TD-Linux 11y ago

The DRM plugin is downloaded and installed automatically with the "normal" version of Firefox. So if you don't want to be downloading purposely-obfuscated proprietary Adobe binaries, you have to install this version. Also, by default, EME activates on any webpage that requests it.

cpeterso 11y ago
If you disable EME (in the Firefox Preferences menu by unchecking the "Play DRM content" checkbox), Firefox will delete the Adobe CDM binary if it has been installed. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm
- rr56 11y ago
  I bet "how many people downloaded the DRM-less version" is an important statistic for Mozilla - Having FF in the middle of an automatic update, I'll be getting the other version however, and I wonder if having disabled this feature, will the browser call home to count towards it...
  - reubenmorais 11y ago
    > I wonder if having disabled this feature, will the browser call home to count towards it... It will not. Currently the only telemetry related to EME is the VIDEO_EME_PLAY_SUCCESS histogram, which counts successes/failures of playback. It's only enabled then EME itself is enabled, though.
- eps 11y ago
  Wait a second. Doesn't EME imply a kernel component? To safeguard the encryption keys and to generally complicate an access to the raw media? If so, does it mean that this Firefox update touches the kernel?
  - reubenmorais 11y ago
    It does not imply a kernel component. From the point of view of the browser, EME is an API to a sandboxed binary (the CDM) that decrypts video frames and sends them back to the browser, which then presents them to the user. The CDM might use kernel facilities for storing encryption keys.
    - eps 11y ago
      Bad wording. Does this update add Adobe's stuff into kernel or does it not (e.g. if Adobe is just piggy-backing on Windows PMP)? Can anyone from Mozilla comment on this? This is a principal question, because if there is an Adobe's kernel DRM driver in this update, then it makes sense to go with the "EME-free" update instead of adding and then, hopefully, removing 3rd party junk from the kernel as per that Mozilla KB linked elsewhere in this thread.
      - cpeterso 11y ago
        I work at Mozilla on the EME team. Neither Firefox nor the Adobe CDM install any kernel code. The Adobe CDM is, conceptually, the Flash Player's DRM code repackaged to work with Firefox's CDM API. And the Flash Player doesn't need to install new kernel drivers. Studios have different DRM requirements for video quality levels like HD, non-HD, "Studio HD", and "Ultra HD". For higher quality video, studios might require secure hardware path. Even this level, AFAIU, doesn't require new kernel drivers because Windows already has APIs for this.
        eps 11y ago
        Thank you.

jordigh 11y ago

Although I am sure the situation is more subtle than reported, I am reminded of this old ELER: http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/taking-freedom-further http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/taking-freedom-furth... "What better way to justify the proprietary bits of [Firefox] than a practically stooge [browser] to point at whenever we're questioned!" All this has happened before. All this will happen again.

sp332 11y ago
"We see DRM in general as profoundly hostile to all three of: users, open source software, and browser vendors who aren’t also DRM vendors." https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/ https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/ "We very much want to see a different system. Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point. In the past Firefox has changed the industry, and we intend to do so again. Today, however, we cannot cause the change we want regarding DRM." https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challen... "this is a radical, disheartening development in the history of the organisation" http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-cl... So no, it's not really more subtle than reported. This is Firefox fighting and losing.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  This is Firefox giving up without even attempting a fight.
  - sp332 11y ago
    Just because you haven't been paying attention doesn't mean they haven't been fighting.

schoen 11y ago

You might worry that you wouldn't notice which sites are using it. Or you might want to send a message to sites, or to Mozilla, that you think DRM is bad and that you don't want to have DRM implementations installed. One of the worst things about each browser vendor's decision to support DRM is that it makes the choice to require DRM less costly for new web sites that are considering it. So even if you think Netflix could never have been budged, random site X might now say "cool, we can control what people can do with video on our site, at a surprisingly low interoperability cost to us!". If you want to avoid that outcome as an end-user, you have to do whatever you can to increase potential DRM adopters' view of the market share they will put at risk.

superuser2 11y ago
This end does not seem to be served by niche browsers which will be used only by the EFF-card-carrying subset of the tech community, people who are most able and least ethically inhibited from piracy anyway. This is a good reason to keep the functionality out of mainstream browsers, but it doesn't seem to work if it's just us using deliberately hobbled browsers.
- pXMzR2A 11y ago
  > EFF-card-carrying subset of the tech community, people who are most able and least ethically inhibited from piracy anyway. Good rhetoric. They are evil because they believe in ethics. Go for it dude, who's holding you!
- pdkl95 11y ago
  How typical of the DRM/closed-web subset of the tech community to justify their collaboration with accusations of piracy at those of us trying to create a free and open web. Resisting any type of DRM from the very beginning is important, because the fight will be a lot harder once there is an established community of users. Educating people about DRM is hard enough; it is almost impossible when it also requires convincing people to give up some service (i.e. netflix) that they have grown accustomed to. This is the latest battle the ongoing War On General Purpose Computing[1], and a lot of people that should know better are choosing movies and the dream of short-term profits over long-term freedom. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y

bcheung 11y ago

Publishers who want to protect their content against piracy and don't want to use cumbersome expensive solutions. Traditionally DRM has been a hassle for legal users, expensive to publishers, and complex to encode and host video. Having a browser standard would make it convenient to users and publishers.

schoen 11y ago
The original commenter was asking why people would want to prevent their browser from having DRM support, rather than why publishers would want DRM. (For DRM opponents, having convenient and standardized DRM is worse in many ways because it is more likely to be adopted in more circumstances.)
- bcheung 11y ago
  I can't think of a good reason to deliberately remove it from your browser. Why would it be worse if more companies used DRM? I can think of some edge cases on obscure devices or if you are pirate but other than that it seems like legal users would be unaffected and not even notice it.
  - ptx 11y ago
    > it seems like legal users would be unaffected and not even notice it. Yes, just like Sony said in response to the rootkit scandal – "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" DRM is a declaration from the publishers that they distrust you so much that they must be granted absolute control over your machine. You can't retain higher privileges over your own machine than they have, or else you would be able to circumvent their system and it wouldn't work. Why would you trust someone who has declared themselves your enemy to run arbitrary code with root privileges on your machine?
    - bcheung 11y ago
      That highlights the need for standard DRM rather than having each company using their own code that runs on your computer. With a standard DRM solution, the only person you would need to trust is the browser vendor. This seems like a better alternative than having a company force you to use their DRM.

maxerickson 11y ago

There is some back and forth about it in the Firefox 38 story that was on the front page earlier in the day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9532417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9532417 I'm having trouble writing a summary that avoids sarcasm.

nly 11y ago

If you're morally opposed to DRM, then it's a surefire way to ensure you don't unknowingly use a service that requires it, thereby encouraging its proliferation.

jeena 11y ago

Wow, when I clicked to see the comments section here on HN it was kind of the other way around in my head. I thought "Yes! Finally good news from Mozilla!" I don't need this binary blob on my computer and therefor I don't want it because I can never know what it does. Why use Linux if you end up running closed source binary blobs anyway? (I understand that somewhere down there I still am using some propriatary nvidia driver or something but if I can avoid it then I would like to be able to.)

Nursie 11y ago

It will tell me what sites to avoid by failing to work with them.

bcg1 11y ago

Without getting too preachy about DRM itself... the need for computing tools that exist outside of the fictitious corporate-goverment-legal structures dominated by power and money are essential to ensuring human freedom in a digital world. As we choose and are forced to have more of our lives moved into this realm, it becomes more relevant every day. Many people do not care about those things, and prefer Netflix et al over such matters, or perhaps have never looked closely at the issue. Mozilla has (had?) a tradition and reputation for caring about this. I suspect that many of us would prefer them to go even further, such as not implement the feature at all in protest.