On 27/05/14 17:03, Jim wrote:
> * Mozilla is a paying member of the W3C publishing the EME specification.
The position Mozilla has been put in with respect to DRM and EME has
very, very little to do with the fact that EME is in the W3C process.
Gerv
_
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 02:03:17AM +0200, Jim wrote:
> On 2014-05-27 08:34, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jim wrote:
> >>What are Mozilla going to do when some CDM innovations allows HTTP
> >>requests
> >>to be passed to the CDM and received and presented in the web brow
Jim schrieb:
Great, ignore all the technical challenges, accuse your opposition of
not engaging in a 'constructive conversation', and deny the facts.
You will be happier once you give others the benefit of the doubt and
assume they think about what they are doing themselves as well. Relax
and
On 2014-05-27 08:34, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jim wrote:
What are Mozilla going to do when some CDM innovations allows HTTP
requests
to be passed to the CDM and received and presented in the web browser?
This
will effectively add DRM to any web content. The EME sol
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jim wrote:
> What are Mozilla going to do when some CDM innovations allows HTTP requests
> to be passed to the CDM and received and presented in the web browser? This
> will effectively add DRM to any web content. The EME solution requires JS to
> complete the play
On 2014-05-22 02:44, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Jim schrieb:
You have still not proven your claim that the CDM will be robust
I think that can only be proven once the code exists, and it still to
be written. Once it's there, I'm sure everyone will be happy if you
inspect it for that robustness.
En
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Jim wrote:
> On 2014-05-21 19:24, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Jim wrote:
>>>
>>> The parts of an EME based media player not specified are implemented in
>>> JS/HTML making it an obvious target for a polyfill. Mozilla could have
>>>
> Jim schrieb:
>
>> You have still not proven your claim that the CDM will be robust
There's nothing to be gained from debating robustness here. Us
convincing you about robustness is entirely beside the point. What
matters is Adobe convincing streaming service operators that Adobe's
solution meets
On 2014-05-21, 11:41 PM, Jim wrote:
On 2014-05-21 16:03, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-05-21, 1:30 AM, Jim wrote:
There are very real technical differences in the ability to sandbox a
separate DRM player versus an integrated web based media player.
I'm not sure there are.
It is trivially obv
On 2014-05-21 19:24, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Jim wrote:
The parts of an EME based media player not specified are implemented
in
JS/HTML making it an obvious target for a polyfill. Mozilla could have
promoted a standard that has a polyfill that will work on EME ena
On 2014-05-21 16:03, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-05-21, 1:30 AM, Jim wrote:
There are very real technical differences in the ability to sandbox
a
separate DRM player versus an integrated web based media player.
I'm not sure there are.
It is trivially obvious. It is much easier for people t
Jim schrieb:
You have still not proven your claim that the CDM will be robust
I think that can only be proven once the code exists, and it still to be
written. Once it's there, I'm sure everyone will be happy if you inspect
it for that robustness.
KaiRo
Majken Connor schrieb:
This is the kind of topic that Reps will be asked about.
Yes, I have already been strongly asked about this by the local FSFE
group, I expect more questions from more people to follow. And other
Reps will get that as well. If you are a Rep, please watch the townhall
ca
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Jim wrote:
> The parts of an EME based media player not specified are implemented in
> JS/HTML making it an obvious target for a polyfill. Mozilla could have
> promoted a standard that has a polyfill that will work on EME enabled web
> browsers and could have refus
On 2014-05-21, 1:30 AM, Jim wrote:
There are very real technical differences in the ability to sandbox a
separate DRM player versus an integrated web based media player.
I'm not sure there are.
It is trivially obvious. It is much easier for people to sandbox a
separate computing device, they
On 2014-05-21 05:35, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/20/14, 11:19 PM, Jim wrote:
We've tried to get that part standardized, and failed.
Prove this claim.
We explicitly requested the HTML working group to agree to take it on
as a deliverable. They, and more importantly the other browser
vendors in
On 5/20/14, 11:19 PM, Jim wrote:
We've tried to get that part standardized, and failed.
Prove this claim.
We explicitly requested the HTML working group to agree to take it on as
a deliverable. They, and more importantly the other browser vendors
involved, refused.
Where is this claimed
On 5/20/14, 10:59 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
I would have expected that each module involved - Firefox, the sandbox,
and the CDM - would be running as a separate process, with at least the
last one nested inside the previous.
I'm not sure what you mean by nesting one process inside the other.
Wha
On 2014-05-18 07:49, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/18/14, 12:51 AM, Jim wrote:
It does require that the JS component communicating with the CDM
via the EME is a standard. Netflix might refuse to support this
standard, but you could try.
We've tried to get that part standardized, and failed.
Prov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/20/2014 12:51 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/20/14, 11:03 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
>> If it is properly sandboxed, it should not be able to find out
>> anything about the sandbox (== the host executable) except what the
>> sandbox itself tell
On 2014-05-20 18:51, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/20/14, 11:03 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
If it is properly sandboxed, it should not be able to find out
anything
about the sandbox (== the host executable) except what the sandbox
itself tells it
A sandboxed process still have full access to its own
On 5/20/14, 11:03 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
If it is properly sandboxed, it should not be able to find out anything
about the sandbox (== the host executable) except what the sandbox
itself tells it
A sandboxed process still have full access to its own address space, no?
It may be restricted in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/20/2014 04:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Majken Connor
> wrote:
>
>> A guide similar to the CEO FAQ would be great, as well as having
>> people reach out on the Reps-General list to discuss how to talk
>> abo
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> A guide similar to the CEO FAQ would be great, as well as
> having people reach out on the Reps-General list to discuss how to talk
> about this and answer questions (not just about information on the topic)
> would be really helpful.
The FA
Thanks for the precise and comprehensive reply, Henri.
Nick
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Rubén Martín
> wrote:
>> * It's not the first time we take decisions because everyone else is
>> doing it, and we want to keep being relevan
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Rubén Martín
wrote:
> * It's not the first time we take decisions because everyone else is
> doing it, and we want to keep being relevant.
> o This worries me the most looking at the future, since we are
> going to be always the only ones with c
On 5/18/14, 12:51 AM, Jim wrote:
It does require that the JS component communicating with the CDM
via the EME is a standard. Netflix might refuse to support this
standard, but you could try.
We've tried to get that part standardized, and failed.
If you are sandboxing the CDM, and if the CDM o
On 2014-05-18 04:01, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/17/14, 7:30 PM, Jim wrote:
..
I summarized my understanding of the proposal in my last email to you.
I'm afraid I'm missing a crucial part of your proposal: how do you
plan to get the CDM to play along with it?
If the player is defined in a JS/
On 17/5/2014, 20:37, Jim wrote:
On 2014-05-17 16:17, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
On 16/5/2014, 21:41, Jim wrote:
As soon as you release the source code I will use it to build an
external media player and define declarative HTML mechanisms for tagging
videos that need to use this player that allow th
On 5/17/14, 8:37 PM, Jim wrote:
I am still waiting for Mozilla to make the sandbox source code available
There is no source code to make available yet, as far as I know; the
announcement was made once the agreements were reached, and there hasn't
been time to actually start implementing the s
On 5/17/14, 7:30 PM, Jim wrote:
Mozilla did not even put up a fight
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I respectfully disagree.
Three passing comments does not demonstrate any heart or fight. You have
made more posts defending Mozilla's decision to implement the EME!
I care a l
On 2014-05-17 16:17, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
On 16/5/2014, 21:41, Jim wrote:
As soon as you release the source code I will use it to build an
external media player and define declarative HTML mechanisms for
tagging
videos that need to use this player that allow the launching of this
with as lit
On 2014-05-17 05:33, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/16/14, 9:41 PM, Jim wrote:
Henri seems rather hard to understand, but he seems to have promoted
the
EME in the end.
There's a difference between "accepting" and "promoting".
Mozilla did not even put up a fight so it seems very fair to judge
Mo
On 16/5/2014, 21:41, Jim wrote:
As soon as you release the source code I will use it to build an
external media player and define declarative HTML mechanisms for tagging
videos that need to use this player that allow the launching of this
with as little annoyance as possible. An EME/JS version wi
On 5/16/14, 9:41 PM, Jim wrote:
Henri seems rather hard to understand, but he seems to have promoted the
EME in the end.
There's a difference between "accepting" and "promoting".
Did you ever make a statement on the EME?
http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=drm&hdr-
On 2014-05-15 15:20, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/15/14, 6:01 AM, Jim wrote:
Mozilla have supported
the W3C and the EME all the way
Uh... are you serious? The Mozilla people who are on the record
speaking about this issue before today (me, Robert, Henri) come across
that way to you?
Would add
On 2014-05-15 17:20, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/15/14, 6:01 AM, Jim wrote:
Mozilla have supported
the W3C and the EME all the way
Uh... are you serious? The Mozilla people who are on the record
speaking about this issue before today (me, Robert, Henri) come across
that way to you?
Henri seem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/15/2014 05:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:40 AM, The Wanderer
> wrote:
>
>> However, I note that with the Hollywood studios, and to some extent
>> the companies behind the other browsers, a lack of outrage is less
>>
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:38:52AM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rubén Martín
> wrote:
> > * It's not the first time we take decisions because everyone else is
> > doing it, and we want to keep being relevant.
> > o This worries me the most looking at
On 5/15/14, 1:07 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Some obvious bits that jumped out at me:
* The CDM not having unmediated access to the network, the hard drive,
or any other part of the user's computer.
* The CDM being available on Linux.
If the CDM can run while completely sandboxed from network a
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:40 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> However, I note that with the Hollywood studios, and to some extent the
> companies behind the other browsers, a lack of outrage is less
> surprising, because - little though we like it - that sort of thing is
> what we *expect* them to do, ba
A bit aside to the discussion of DRM itself -
This is the kind of topic that Reps will be asked about. I'll be helping
man our booth at OSCON for example. Of course Reps were invited to the town
hall, but I'd like to see something a bit more like training than just
information. A guide similar to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/15/2014 09:33 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> On 15/05/2014 14:01, Jim wrote:
>
>> On 2014-05-15 11:38, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Mozilla sold out for fear of losing market share.
>
> Sorry, where does "sold out" come from? We receive no financi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/15/2014 05:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> It's not a question of absolutes. We don't have anywhere near as much
> marketshare that we can call all the shots all the time. But that
> doesn't mean that we don't have any influence.
>
> But there
On 5/15/14, 6:01 AM, Jim wrote:
Mozilla have supported
the W3C and the EME all the way
Uh... are you serious? The Mozilla people who are on the record
speaking about this issue before today (me, Robert, Henri) come across
that way to you?
and are still a member of the W3C
Yes, we were e
On 5/15/14, 5:08 AM, Jim wrote:
How does it meet the demands by content owners for robust DRM, while
allowing the user to sandbox the CDM, and also not being tivoized which
is not an option on Linux?
I personally do not know. But I am told by people I trust (e.g. Henri),
that this issue was c
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jim wrote:
> The community received no support from Mozilla. Mozilla have supported the
> W3C and the EME all the way, and are still a member of the W3C. Even when
> W3C employees started joking about assassinating EME dissenters Mozilla was
> silent. Mozilla have
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> * Not shipping it by default.
> * Requiring explicit user content before downloading the CDM.
These are potentially misleading statements. What "shipping" means is
ambiguous, and we've not reached a conclusion on where exactly the
user c
On 15/05/2014 14:01, Jim wrote:
On 2014-05-15 11:38, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rubén Martín
wrote:
* It's not the first time we take decisions because everyone else is
doing it, and we want to keep being relevant.
o This worries me the most looking at t
On 15/05/14 15:01, Jim wrote:
> Mozilla sold out for fear of losing market share. You didn't even try to
> make a case to users to stick with Firefox if they were forced to use an
> alternative browser to view some media content.
I for one can't even begin to think how we could have made such a ca
On 2014-05-15 11:38, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rubén Martín
wrote:
* It's not the first time we take decisions because everyone else is
doing it, and we want to keep being relevant.
o This worries me the most looking at the future, since we are
g
On 2014-05-15 10:07, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/14/14, 8:23 PM, Jim wrote:
What exactly has been negotiated?
Some obvious bits that jumped out at me:
* The CDM not having unmediated access to the network, the hard drive,
or any other part of the user's computer.
* The CDM being available on L
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rubén Martín
wrote:
> * It's not the first time we take decisions because everyone else is
> doing it, and we want to keep being relevant.
> o This worries me the most looking at the future, since we are
> going to be always the only ones with
On 5/14/14, 8:23 PM, Jim wrote:
What exactly has been negotiated?
Some obvious bits that jumped out at me:
* The CDM not having unmediated access to the network, the hard drive,
or any other part of the user's computer.
* The CDM being available on Linux.
* The CDM not being able to track
On 2014-05-14 21:46, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
...
Second, there was in fact a good reason for the lack of previous
public discussion on this. There were a lot of delicate negotiations
with various DRM vendors involved to get to the state where are now
(e.g. being able to sandbox the CDM). Part of o
Hi,
caveat these are my personal opinions and only that.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:11:39AM +0200, Rubén Martín wrote:
> There are a few interesting articles about this topic:
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/mozilla-and-drm
Personally I think there's a lot to be said for the EFF's pos
There are a few interesting articles about this topic:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/mozilla-and-drm
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow
Quoting The Guardian article:
> When a charitable nonprofit like Mozilla makes a shi
On my point of view, it's important to stay open.
But Mozilla have right, if you we don't implement this, Firefox part on
web browser will decrease.
Maybe we can find a solution between the current proposal and no drm.
If you propose DRM implementation by a add-ons, a special add-ons open
source w
On 5/14/14, 1:37 PM, Rubén Martín wrote:
Probably it was me, but the article wording was too complex and didn't
summarize what Boris wrote:
* Not shipping it by default (the CDM module).
* Requiring explicit user content before downloading the CDM.
* Insisting on a CDM that is sandboxed
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Rubén Martín
wrote:
> My main fear is that now that Mozilla implements a way to work with DRM,
> it would be more common for sites to use it since every browser supports
> it, instead of exploring other ways as watermarking.
Different browsers support different D
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Rubén Martín
wrote:
> Probably it was me, but the article wording was too complex and didn't
> summarize what Boris wrote:
> * Not shipping it by default (the CDM module).
> * Requiring explicit user content before downloading the CDM.
> * Insisting on a CDM
El 14/05/14 20:57, Gijs Kruitbosch escribió:
> There was a town hall about this earlier today. Did the invite not
> reach you? A lot of this was already discussed.
It seems that email didn't reach a lot of people, I'll have to watch the
Town Hall recording.
>>* We want to get rid of plugins but
On 14/05/2014 20:47, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
There was a town hall about this earlier today. Did the invite not reach
you? A lot of this was already discussed.
I only received an email from Brian King ~3h ago, via Reps-General.
IIRC there
Rubén, thank you for starting this thread.
As a caveat, what follows are all my personal opinions, not official
Mozilla anything.
First off, I'd like to say that I don't know anyone in the Mozilla
project who is happy that we're ending up in a place where we feel like
we have to do this to s
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
> There was a town hall about this earlier today. Did the invite not reach
> you? A lot of this was already discussed.
I only received an email from Brian King ~3h ago, via Reps-General.
IIRC there was no Mozillians-wide email.
Cheers,
Dir
On 14/05/2014 19:10, Rubén Martín wrote:
Hi,
I've just found these two articles with the announcement:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/
And since I can't find where the d
66 matches
Mail list logo
