Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/12/mozilla-launches-a-new-firefox-version-without-drm-support/#.4a6ylb:CFbt

by harshabhat86 • 11 years ago

259 205 11 years ago

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• 11 years 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.

cpeterso3• 11 years 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

jordigh• 11 years 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-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.

sp3322• 11 years 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/

"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-challen...

"this is a radical, disheartening development in the history of the organisation" 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.

schoen2• 11 years 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• 11 years 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.

rcthompson2• 11 years ago

Also, if you do visit a site that uses DRM and your browser doesn't support it, it will show up in the server logs, so just using it is sending a message.

bcheung3• 11 years 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.

schoen2• 11 years 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.)

maxerickson• 11 years 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

I'm having trouble writing a summary that avoids sarcasm.

nly• 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

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

bcg1• 11 years 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.

frik• 11 years ago

The direct link isn't end-user friendly: http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/38.0/wi...

Consider a better integration with the download button/page.

maqr• 11 years ago

Would this auto-update if I wanted this version?

I don't want to be off the normal firefox release cycle, but I also don't want my browser to have DRM.

Why couldn't this be an install option and a preferences setting in the normal firefox version? It could even be enabled by default. Then people who care about DRM when they install have the option of disabling it, and people who care about it later once they realize the evils of DRM could disable it in their preferences. If someone installed without DRM but wants it later, the preference could download the DRM at that point instead of automatically.

edit: thanks to cpeterso below: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm

But I still think it would be better as an installer option.

cpeterso3• 11 years ago

Yes, the EME-free build of Firefox 38 will auto-update to EME-free builds of future Firefox versions. The EME-free version is not a one-off build.

mike-cardwell• 11 years ago

And here is the end result of people leaving Firefox for Chrome. You neutered Mozilla. There is no longer a browser vendor which has both your interests in heart and sufficient power to direct the evolution of the web.

Who now gets to choose which features are built into the majority of desktop and mobile browsers? Advertising companies.

tehbeard2• 11 years ago

And here I am heading towards Firefox from Chrome specifically because I can't watch DRM content in Chrome anymore (need silverlight to be able to watch GoT and Comedy central)

hashmymustache2• 11 years ago

Silverlight is needed just to add attachments to Outlook in the browser. I don't understand why there isn't a 64-bit version for chrome on mac.

cabalamat• 11 years ago

need silverlight to be able to watch GoT

No you don't.

I've watched every episode of GoT, without having Silverlight installed (Does it even run on Linux? I've no idea).

DCKing• 11 years ago

Come on. This is the same Mozilla that promoted installing Adobe Flash for internet video since its very inception. If you're really such a purist, they should have been your enemy all along.

Nothing has changed, and the conclusion is nowhere near as dramatic as you're making it sound. The suggestion that Mozilla implemented this for market share reasons is also incredibly unsubstantiated and ignores the very obvious practical reasons they will have had: dropping reliance on large propietary application runtimes (the DRM module is much smaller and has less functionality), improving user experience, and the fact that it's an actual web standard (albeit the most controversial one).

jordanlev• 11 years ago

I don't think the parent's point was about purity of not having DRM in firefox, but rather that since Firefox's user base has decreased so much in recent years, Mozilla no longer has the leverage they used to in terms of browser features. In other words, if Firefox had 50% share of browser usage, they would be in a position to prevent EME from becoming an industry standard -- but since they have a much lower percentage (10% I think if you take mobile into account), they felt forced by pragmatism to include it.

icebraining• 11 years ago

I don't disagree that Mozilla was never a purist organization, but I think the suggestion is well substantiated. From the post announcing it:

"With most competing browsers and the content industry embracing the W3C EME specification, Mozilla has little choice but to implement EME as well so our users can continue to access all content they want to enjoy. (…) We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM."

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...

bobajeff• 11 years ago

I left Internet Explorer for Firefox because I was unsatisfied and jumped to the first viable alternative. I left Firefox for Chrome for the same reason. I'll jump to the next viable alternative as soon as it's available.

enknamel• 11 years ago

You would think that but chrome is much more insidious than other browsers. I can log in to chrome on all my devices and share bookmarks, apps, sessions, passwords, etc. That makes me a sticky chrome user because I lose all that functionality if I ever switch.

mmcru• 11 years ago

agreed. i try to explain to people that firefox is an open source program created by an organization that is trying to keep the web free, while chrome is created by one of the world's biggest advertising companies, but they don't seem to care enough to use firefox.

i feel like mozilla should give up on the soccer mom users and focus on being the power user browser. this is already the case to an extent, but they don't market firefox's advantages (like better extensions) well enough, and they don't quite focus on power-user-type features as much as i think they could.

yuhong2• 11 years ago

I don't think most users need to care about it this much anyway.

throwaway150512• 11 years ago

Yeah, so...

Mozilla itself deserves to shoulder at least as much of the blame due to a number of decisions that range from mediocre to downright terrible. And I'm not even talking about what happened with Brendan. I'm talking about the organization's downturn during the years that directly correspond with the tenure of people like Gary "JavaScript rendering engine" Kovacs and the years that saw Sullivan at the height of his influence.

The engineers aren't blameless either, having allowed themselves and the engineering culture to become the target of whatever neutering that did occur. "But I mean, these are business people; this kind of stuff is what they should know, right?" Sure, right. Totally let 'em go ahead and pursue those useless fucking partnerships at the costs they're coming with. After all, that's what real businesses look like.

notsony7• 11 years ago

What happened with Brendan may be very relevant. See my post further up in this thread.

Brendan did not like what the W3C was doing with DRM and was quite vocal about it. His prop 8 donation was public knowledge for years and nobody had a problem with it... but then suddenly the board, the employees and the community were outraged.

As soon as he was forced out the other execs at Mozilla announced they would be implementing DRM and EME. Coincidence?

higherpurpose• 11 years ago

I for one am pretty decided to move to Firefox once Mozilla integrates Servo into it (granted the performance benefits really are significant).

But I'm also waiting for Mozilla to implement its multi-process sandboxing system. Microsoft seems to be doing some interesting things on that front as well - I hope Mozilla is watching. I like the idea of having each tab in an secured app container, which sounds even better than Chrome's tab-in-a-process system.

https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/11/microsoft-edg...

Of course this will only work on Windows 10, but I don't think that's any reason to wait on implementing such a system (unless it has some major issues I'm not seeing, of course).

callahad2• 11 years ago

I for one am pretty decided to move to Firefox once Mozilla integrates Servo into it

Hooray! I'm excited to have you back. :)

If your switch is gated on Servo, you might be in for a long wait: we're moving small, modular components into Firefox as we're able, but completely changing implementation languages for parts of a browser used by hundreds of millions of people is a slow, deliberate process which involves pretty significant changes not only to our codebase, but also to our build infrastructure.

Right now the immediate goal is to share either an image decoder or the URL parser between Servo and Firefox. Quite likely by the end of the year.

Follow these bugs to find out more when things land:

https://bugzil.la/oxidation, https://bugzil.la/1151899, https://bugzil.la/1161350

I'm also waiting for Mozilla to implement its multi-process sandboxing system

I believe we're uplifting multi-process into the Dev Edition 40 release in a week or so. If not, it'll be in 41. Goal is to have it on by default in the release channel by the end of the year: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule

shmerl7• 11 years ago

Blame Netflix for this garbage. And if you use their service, you can stop as well.

codexon2• 11 years ago

Why not blame youtube as well?

byuu11• 11 years ago

And here is the end result of people leaving Firefox for Chrome.

Mozilla brought that on themselves by racing as fast as possible to become Chrome. If I'm going to be forced to use the Chrome UI, why would I settle for an inferior copy of it named Australis?

Then there was the Awesomebar, Hello, mandatory signed extensions, ads on your newtab page, forcing the retention of download history, and on and on. DRM is just the next step in a long, sad succession. Mozilla has been trying as hard as possible since 4.x to get us to stop using their browser. No surprise it's working.

cddotdotslash2• 11 years ago

This is ridiculous. In every other example, we say "innovate or die" (think taxis and Uber). In this case, Mozilla did not innovate as quickly as Chrome, and made a number of bad decisions, which led to their loss of market share. Consumers should not be blamed for picking a new product when it outpaces the old.

angersock7• 11 years ago

Yeah, but at least we managed to get that hateful bigot out of the company! That's important, right? </sarcasm>

More seriously, we really do have a problem, but it looks like the users just don't want to be free.

dec0dedab0de3• 11 years ago

but it looks like the users just don't want to be free.

The users don't care. I have never been able to convince a layperson why DRM should matter at all to them, have you?.

therealfoxy• 11 years ago

Yep - when they asked why the online service that they bought DRM ridden content from closed, and now their purchases were lost (they were asking what to do/how to do it).

dabockster2• 11 years ago

Right on it. Most users use the things they do because they're either easy or there is no other feasible choice. Will a user download a plugin when a browser can now "guarantee" most forms of content to play without one? I know I probably wouldn't.

Adobe just became an unwritten standard... again.

angersock7• 11 years ago

The best I've gotten is when we can't watch something on a project from a macbook because ~hdcp~.

DanBC• 11 years ago

"That DVD you bought? The one from a different region? It won't play and the reason it won't play is because of DRM. You think you can just put it in your laptop and use VLC, but you forget that your laptop DVD drive is probably region-locked in firmware, so although yes VLC ignores region coding the drive doesn't, and will enforce the region coding and refuse to play your DVD. I can fix it for you. Here's the list of stuff we need to do:

1) Find out the drive name and model number. 2) Find and download a firmware file for that drive. 3) Patch the firmware to turn it either into RPC1 or into auto-restarting RPC2. 4) Flash the file. 5) Carefully never ever use certain software and always cancel out of certain dialog boxes.

All this just because rights-holders want to stop you buying a new DVD from outside your region."

azakai• 11 years ago

The users don't care.

That's true, but I think it's a cop out.

When Google, Microsoft and Netflix specced, implemented and shipped EME, there was no significant pushback. Of course, as you say, average users don't care - they don't even understand the issue. But tech people didn't care enough either.

Instead, tech people flocked to products made by at least 2 of those 3 responsible for EME. And they kept installing those products for their non-techie relatives and so forth.

The real reason EME was not stopped is that people in the tech industry didn't care. A few of us did, of course, but the majority of us simply didn't. Most tech people agree that DRM is bad, but as a group we did not decrease our usage of Google, Microsoft and Netflix products containing EME.

We could have stopped this. We didn't.

hoopd9• 11 years ago

You know, I'm sick of people making such a big deal just becasue Mozilla lost its CEO in such an awful way that he didn't even return to his CTO role. Just because he literally wrote JavaScript, co-founded Mozilla and worked on Firefox since it was called Netscape Navigator it doesn't mean he should be able to take part in America's political process in a way that some find offensive.

Karunamon20• 11 years ago

*most find offensive.

It is possible for someone to be a brilliant technologist and an otherwise awful person. And before someone takes me to task for the words "awful person" - sorry, that's my evaluation of someone who'd rather lose their job than say sorry for the prejudice.

mavdi• 11 years ago

I remember back in the day people were suggesting moving from Flash video to HTML5 video will somehow free us from Adobe DRM and DRM in general.

Those were funny days.

magicalist3• 11 years ago

actual mozilla announcement: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r...

betenoire• 11 years ago

Will in-browser DRM prevent someone from running some screencast software? I dunno... it just seems like if I can see it with my eyes and hear it with my ears, then software can do that also, DRM or not.

bigphishy• 11 years ago

DRM implmentation into W3 standards and HTML5 won't impede pirates for a second.

jgord• 11 years ago

Do the right thing and make it the default.

upofadown• 11 years ago

The interesting part of this is the "sandbox" intended to keep the DRM module out of parts of the system you don't want it messing with. Some general commentary here:

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r...

shmerl7• 11 years ago

It's only for the Windows version? In the Linux version that setting in about:config is enabled by default. I set it to false.

e12e• 11 years ago

Apparently DRM doesn't work on Linux, yet - but either way: how can DRM even work with Free software? If I can modify the source and build my own version, surely I can [make a version of the software that] strip out the DRM? Would that make Mozilla liable as facilitating breach of the DMCA?

Or is the DRM bit really in a binary blob supplied with the gpu/audio driver? [And support in the browser is just to facilitate shipping the data to the correct api entry point]

Sir_Cmpwn• 11 years ago

It's a binary blob served by Adobe or whoever it may be. The DRM API is basically just a plugin layer.

shmerl7• 11 years ago

DRM is not free software. EME itself is not DRM. It's an API to interact with DRM module. Which doesn't make it any better. It should have no place in HTML standard.

jumpwah4• 11 years ago

This is obviously the main issue. The DRM component itself is nonfree, downloaded from Adobe's servers (iirc).

With this DRM section in the official html specification, it is impossible to implement a fully html spec compliant, free software browser, which personally I think is outrageous.

At the end of the day, it's still "just" a spec, but I don't think someone (like the WHATWG previously) can just come along and "fix" this and get everyone on their side. At the very least, this almost feels like a betrayal by the w3c.

The plain truth is that no one cares about free software, even when the software (a web-standards compliant web browser) is concerning one of the greatest technological revolutions in human history so far (the internet), which is just honestly sad in my opinion.

On the topic of firefox though, I hope Mozilla keeps the DRM part of the browser an opt-in to download, rather than coming directly with the firefox package itself. Anyone know if this is still the case or not? Also, does anyone know if this DRM component is in the linux packages? (The article mentions only windows vista+.)

shmerl7• 11 years ago

Netflix are hypocrites (and all this is primarily their fault). They claimed that this DRM garbage in the standard wasn't their desire, and they did it to oblige obsessed publishers. Yet, where is their own content DRM-free?

LeoPanthera• 11 years ago

It's possible to dislike DRM but also understand that it is necessary for your business to function. I imagine the majority of their content comes from sources which demand DRM.

If I were Netflix, I would use my own content (such as House of Cards) to demonstrate that it's possible to go DRM-free.

shmerl7• 11 years ago

If I were Netflix, I would use my own content (such as House of Cards) to demonstrate that it's possible to go DRM-free.

That's primarily my point, but I don't agree that DRM in necessary for business. Music is sold DRM-free, games are too (GOG). So there is no reason why video can't be. Someone just have to break the sick status quo.

MichaelGG2• 11 years ago

Yes, it's important to keep in mind that while Netflix is fighting bad people and we like them for that, many things they do are against consumer interests. Like Steam. It's just that the alternatives are so worse, we give them a pass.

You're right: Someone should corner them on why "Netflix Original" content isn't DRM free. (Or why they still restrict access and subtitles based on region, for "Netflix Original" titles.)

DRM for Netflix is about putting up barriers. Just like Amazon convinced publishers to go with Kindle DRM, giving Amazon the power in the end. By encouraging DRM, it's harder to compete as it is one more thing to do that Netflix already has. It's not as powerful as Kindle's lockin - content licensing is a bigger deal. Apart from that? Well, Popcorn Time provides a much better experience than Netflix. (Proper subs, force HD, use better player to normalize audio ("night mode") or otherwise tweak viewing, no messing with proxies, etc.) My wife and kids are already starting to use PT, even when the same content is on Netflix. Yikes. (Torrents + put.io was already pretty slick, but slightly more difficult (2 apps, one extra click).)

shmerl7• 11 years ago

Popcorn Time though goes against the principles of distributed network like BitTorrent. I.e. it prioritizes first data blocks most and as such it's not network friendly, since network is built on assumption of equal prioritization. So while it's an interesting idea in general, it doesn't sound like the right solution technically.

Anyway, it's going a bit off-topic here, except may be it's a good reminder that DRM should never be used since it only punishes legitimate customers and does nothing good.

soviel• 11 years ago

Here is put.io and Popcorn Time in a single app: https://github.com/barisariburnu/putio-popcorn-time

pasbesoin• 11 years ago

Aside from everything else (NOT that I am happy with the context), I am simply disgusted that Adobe is being "rewarded" with a role in this.

Not just their ongoing security fiasco, but also having had to deal with their tremendously incompetent technical support, have left me permanently opposed to their company.

Yes, the design allows for an arbitrary party -- I guess, although ties to / use of TPM and whatever mean that, in practice, there will be a much smaller field of... "mainstream" providers. In practice, though, meet the new evil, same as the old evil.

JOnAgain• 11 years ago

Installer please.

bsder• 11 years ago

Actually, the best way to fight this would be to fund people to break the DRM blob.

What better way to drive home the uselessness of DRM than to have zillions of people having an automatic plugin that bypasses DRM everywhere it runs?

backprojection• 11 years ago

Wouldn't this violate the dmca? If it's not something people can get with minimal effort, then millions of people are not going to use it.

The ad-blocking plugins are so successful because their so easy to get. If something's illegal to distribute, then it's sufficiently inconvenient to obtain (tormenting, etc.) that most people won't bother.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/

fulafel• 11 years ago

Just develop & distribute it from outside the US.

forgottenpass• 11 years ago

No, that is just an iteration of a cat and mouse game. It doesn't matter if the technically-weak position can be overcome when it is used by parties with exponentially more money and legal power.

Fighting this fight on technical grounds alone is a surefire way to accelerate the inevitability of locked down computing platforms that restrict what the owner is capable of.

slang800• 11 years ago

Unless it's easier to break DRM than it is to build a new implementation... Then we're just causing the companies that invest in DRM to lose more money than the companies that respect freedom.

I can't say from experience how difficult it is to break and implement the DRM used on the web, but if it's anything like the DRM used in videogames, it should be doable in a couple weeks (with enough motivation).

shmerl7• 11 years ago

DRM blob is probably already broken (and if not, it will be soon enough). Those who use DRM do it despite knowing that it's useless for preventing copying. So breaking that DRM won't help that. It's some kind of distortion of the mind, not the logical reasoning here. Of course there are those who use DRM for simply sinister control purposes (i.e. DMCA-1201 supporters and the like). Those wouldn't care even if you clearly show them that DRM has negative, not positive effect on reducing piracy.

Sir_Substance3• 11 years ago

The best way to fight this would be to stop buying content from companies that use DRM.

God damn, get some self control people.

ticviking2• 11 years ago

But sir, DRM cannot and will not be the sole factor in determining what is worth buying. I will take DRM into account, but I'm not going to let my opposition to DRM cripple my access to Media as much as the worst case nightmare DRM scenario would do.

In some fields DRM is known to be bad and I have excellent competitors making top quality experiences without DRM.

Gaming, and particularly strategy games have a glut of amazing content like this.

In Film though my choices are pay-per-performance(Which I have gleefully several times for Ultron already), or accept that the best work in genres I enjoy is behind DRM.

In Music I've no idea, I honestly just rent access to music without ads from google, and play whatever the playlist generator comes up with.

shit_parade2• 11 years ago

I use Chromium, I wish companies were more honest and gave explicit alerts to consumers when they choose to use DRM.

Mozilla Launches a New Firefox Version Without DRM Support

Related Stories