Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Nothing changed (Score 2) 406

The EME is only part of a media player, the part with the DRM decoder, and it can not play content on its own. The distributors supply proprietary JS to make a complete media player. This locks users into using their web base media player and destroys the market for such media players. This was a deliberate tactic by the distributors, they refused to specify a complete standard. It damages the interests of users. Mozilla's support for the EME makes it much more difficult for the open web community to promote alternative and this has damages the open web community. Adding a specialized DRM interface to the web, as a claimed open web standard, is also damaging in many ways, limiting innovation, and has chilling effects.

Comment Re:As long as the proprietary (Score 1) 406

But how is the CDM going to get such privilege control of a computer to prevent an open web browser reading the decoded output? There is a sandbox, but what about the output of the sandbox? There is just not enough technical detail to verify the claimed user security and control while being a robust DRM system.

Comment Re:This is stupid (Score 2) 406

Yes, but adding DRM to the web is actually driven by the distributors, such as Netflix. DRM movies can already be viewed using plugins or separate media players. Netflix want the EME so that they can delivery a rich[sic] experience, beyond just viewing a DRM movie, and the EME is not a compete DRM media player, just a part of it, allowing the distributors to complete the web media player using proprietary JS and lock users into using their web media players. They will likely be able to patent some of the proprietary media player implementation further damaging the open web. The EME that Mozilla have supported is driven by the distributors. Mozilla could have met the demands on the content owners without supporting the addition of DRM to the web, without supporting the EME.

Comment Re:Should have added screen cap support into Firef (Score 1) 406

Exactly Mozilla could have added the EME but with extra features that save the content, thus demonstrating to the web community that it is open to innovation and not a space for land grabs, and not compatible with DRM. The contemporary web is open, without specialized DRM support, and free to innovation, and Mozilla's actions are compromising this, this is a very dark development. Mozilla's support for the EME is support for selfish corps making land grabs on what we can implement in our own web browsers and under the threat of persecution, and they have damaged the open web.

Comment Re:As long as the proprietary (Score 1) 406

This is a good point, Mozilla have not supplied enough details to verify their claims. If it is this easy to save the decoded output then it is almost certain that big budget content owners will not support it and it will not solve the problem Mozilla claimed forced them into making this decision namely allowing users to view Netflix content. What privilege does the CDM have and how secure is the user's privacy, we just can not verify Mozilla's claims.

Comment Re:Nothing changed (Score 2) 406

There is a big difference between a proprietary plugin using a generic interface, and supporting an open web specification designed specifically to support DRM, a specification that does not even allow the viewing of the resource without further proprietary JS supplied by the distributor. It's anti-competitive and damaging to the open web community. How hard will it be to promote an alternative now that Mozilla back the EME, almost impossible, and this is the damage Mozilla have done.

Comment Re:Not denying something is different from forcing (Score 3, Interesting) 406

Mozilla are not just supporting DRM, you could already view DRM media, the significant development is their supporting for the addition of DRM to the web in a claimed standard, a damaging development for the open web. Mozilla had the choice of supporting the viewing of DRM media outside the web, by using a plugin or by using a separate media player. The DRM web interface they have decided to support, the EME, in not even capable of playing media on it's own, it is just part of a play and the rest is proprietary JS supplied by the content distributor. This is a strategy promoted by the distributors to advance their own selfish interests, by Netflix/Google/MS, it locks the user into using the distributors web based media player, is anti-competitive, and damages the health of the open web market. By supporting the EME Mozilla has made it almost impossible for the open web community to promote alternatives, damaging the open web community, in an act of betrayal.

Mozilla made no attempt to promote alternatives, have not explained the technical details of their EME/CDM design in enough detail for their claims of user security and privacy to be verified, and have refused to clarify that users can even view DRM media via Netflix in all its glory using their EME/CDM which was a key claimed reason for their decision, and have not been honest in the reasons for their decision (it's is not about supporting the viewing of DRM media because this is already possible).

Comment Re:This is all about video streaming (Score 1) 403

No it moves some part of the player into a web standard, the EME, the rest needs to be supplied by the distributor. What they should have done was defined a complete player and kept it out of the web. With such a standard there could be a market for players apart from the distributor with is much more healthy for the user. With the EME the user is locked into the distributors web based media player, and Mozilla have supported this shit.

Comment Re:Corporate directed not volunteer direct ... (Score 2) 403

While people are free to not use the DRM option, Mozilla are supporting the addition of DRM to the web using the EME specification. This is a damaging development, it's not just a generic plugin API but an API focused on DRM. If you add a save-as button feature to an implementation of this open web specification then you risk being prosecuted. Also where does it stop, Mozilla could use the same rationale to support all DRM additions to the web.

With Mozilla supporting the EME it has become practically impossible for any other standard to compete. Standards that are not driven by corps like Netflix/Google/MS and that could have offered the user better security and privacy and features. For example a simple and general declarative HTML extension that can tag the media as requiring a DRM media player which the browser could use to launch an external player keeping DRM out of the web. Mozilla's decision makes them the enemy of such efforts. They have betrayed the open web community.

Comment Re:This is all about video streaming (Score 1) 403

No, it's about adding a DRM media interface, the EME, to the web standards. This allows the distributors to lock users into using their web based media player and they argue this will allow them to delivery rich[sic] content. If all they wanted to do was have a robust DRM media player then it would not have been necessary to have the EME. Mozilla have chosen to support adding a DRM media interface to the web standards. Ask you suggest, Mozilla could have promoted a media player that could be external from the computer, and this would have been better for the user, and would have kept DRM out of the web.

Comment Re:Once again the FSF does not understand (Score 1) 403

Where does it end. Greedy corps add more DRM standard to the web and will Mozilla just keep supporting them so that users continue to be free to use Firefox to sell out their control of their computer? For viewing DRM media, it was not even necessary to add a DRM interface to the web, a generic plugin interface or an external media player would have been better. It is a very damaging development adding DRM interfaces to the web as it limits the freedom of the open web community to innovate. Try adding a save-as button to the Mozilla EME/CDM and you risk being prosecuted. For the petty desire to support viewing DRM media via a web interface Mozilla have betrayed the open web community.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember: use logout to logout.