Comment by Daiz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Daiz | Hacker News Reader

Oh, so the web has given up and is now genuflecting at the altar of video DRM. Next up: picture DRM, because since we're protecting videos we should naturally protect still pictures too. You know what? We also have all this professional writing on the web, and anyone can just copy & paste that! That clearly shouldn't fly in our brand new DRM-protected world - authors should be able to control exactly who can view and read their texts, and copying is strictly forbidden. Screenshots should be blocked too. Browser devtools will naturally have to be disabled on the World Wide Web, as they are capable of hurting our benevolent protector, the almighty DRM. Eventually, we'll arrive at The Right To Read[1].

Or we could just not give the devil our little finger.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Also, a reminder about the nature of this beast that everyone should be aware of:

HTML DRM will not give you plugin-free or standardized playback. It will simply replace Flash/Silverlight with multiple custom and proprietary DRM black boxes that will likely have even worse cross-platform compatibility than the existing solutions. In other words, giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse than it currently is. Especially since it paves the way to an even more closed web.

>>Giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse than it currently is

Except if you use the new Firefox you may have better privacy and security than you currently do with flash and silverlight.

I haven't seen anybody on here argue for DRM, so I don't see the point in this FUD.

Instead, lets find more ways for Firefox to fight DRM and reduce it's negative impact. I particularly support one of Doctorow's suggestions:

>Mozilla has demonstrated that it has some negotiating leverage with Adobe – after all, it was able to fend off the demand for details of users’ systems to be leaked to video companies.

>It should demand that Adobe give it a covenant not to sue or threaten developers who report vulnerabilities in the Adobe decoder. Adobe does not need to give up the right to sue people who release cracks for their DRM or competing products in order to do this.

>In an era in which vulnerabilities are leveraged to expose users to identity theft, sexual exploitation and government surveillance, no one should fear legal reprisal for warning people about flaws in the software they use.

Additionally, we need to focus on ways to educate users about the risks of DRM and disincentive web sites from using DRM wherever possible.

>Except if you use the new Firefox you may have better privacy and security than you currently do with flash and silverlight.

"May". We're still changing a closed plugin to an even more closed black box (or actually multiple black boxes), which could be doing god knows when you're not looking (and even when you are looking). And even if Mozilla manages to negotiate some promises of privacy for Firefox users, what about other browsers - will their users get it just as good when they switch from Flash/Silverlight to some DRM black box? You might say that "it'll happen anyway" since other browser vendors are already in bed with Hollywood on this but Firefox hopping in surely doesn't help the situation any.

> May". We're still changing a closed plugin to an even more closed black box (or actually multiple black boxes), which could be doing god knows when you're not looking (and even when you are looking).

It's more scary than a black box, it's a black box where it is illegal to discuss any vulernabilities or bugs due to the DMCA. At least this black box will be inside of an opensource sandbox that is publicly auditable and testable.

> And even if Mozilla manages to negotiate some promises of privacy for Firefox users,

Mozilla already has commited to providing privacy protections that are superior to the current DRM implementations.

> what about other browsers - will their users get it just as good when they switch from Flash/Silverlight to some DRM black box?

That depends on how good a job Mozilla does at shaping the marketplace and consumer expectations. It also depends on how good a job we do about educating the public about the risks (security and otherwise)

>but Firefox hopping in surely doesn't help the situation any. Why can't it? Why is that sure?

Ways for Firefox to fight DRM: don't implement DRM.

Doing this has put Firefox in a really awful strategic position for fighting DRM on the Web in future. Once large swathes of content starts being DRMed - which is only feasible if all major web browsers support it - Mozilla will not be in a position to fight future encroachment, such as demands from their DRM provider for access outside the sandbox to verify the decrypted data isn't being siphoned off. They won't be able to do anything to stop being pictures being DRMed either, should their DRM provider decide to support it. It's not clear they'd even be able to fight DRM on entire HTML pages since doing so may risk losing video DRM support and access to vast swathes of the Web.

To be honest, Apple are more likely to pose an obstacle to web DRM than Mozilla at this point. While they plan to support EME too I suspect their financial terms for using it may well go beyond what content providers are willing to pay.

That's what I'm thinking about too ...

"please install our browser extension or iOS/Android app to read the article"

"become a pro user today and for just $4.99 read up to 30 articles a day without intrusive video ads every 10 minutes!"

I feel like we've opened Pandora's box and are on our way to turn our web browsers into an equivalent of smartphone operating systems and the internet into apps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com