71–80 of 632 posts
Flagging for inaccurate/inflammatory title. Google isn’t stopping the author from creating a web browser.
The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
Besides, any kind of large-scale user revolt that isn't basically just a mob-like reaction is usually the result of a top-down, coordinated campaign. See the protests against SOPA/PIPA for an example - big websites had to throw their weight behind the idea for it to take hold. The web is simply too diverse and quick moving of a place to expect some kind of people's revolution when it comes to DRM.
Is the Chrome web browser buildable from sources? If yes, what's the difference which allows Chrome to work with DRM and doesn't allow another code to do that? I don't think I understand the problem. What does it mean "won't allow DRM" - you can always write code which you like, right?
Chromium browser is open source. Chrome browser (which is based on Chromium, plus various Google proprietary features on top of it) is not.
The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
Is the Chrome web browser buildable from sources? If yes, what's the difference which allows Chrome to work with DRM and doesn't allow another code to do that? I don't think I understand the problem. What does it mean "won't allow DRM" - you can always write code which you like, right?
Building Chrome requires downloading proprietary binaries that they licensed. Chromium does not include these and does not include widevine by default, but it can be installed as a plugin. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/chromium#Widevine_Conte...
Widevine does not come bundled with Firefox & Chrome. Each installation has to download the Widevine binary. You would be able to use the binary to implement DRM support, like Kodi did.
This is the only reason you can't watch Netflix on FreeBSD using chromium or Firefox, too.
Doesn't FreeBSD provide Linux kernel ABI compatibility?
Also, thanks for pushing on them. I've seen numbers posts on HN recently about the opaque walls folks encounter on Google, Amazon and Facebook property monopolies. This is just another great example. Would it make sense to file this with the EFF? Someone has to be collecting all of these issues for the impending class-action suit?
The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
Sorry, for those of us not privy to how Widevine works, what's the problem exactly? What do you need Google's approval for and why?
Yes, you need Google's approval because now all major browsers have a black-box/binary blob which downloads other funky binary stuff so that it can decrypt video content. As you might figure out Google/Wildevine org gives the blackbox only to approved developers/devices/applications. Bonus DRM: If your license is not "the most certified" your browser/player will play only shitty/low quality versions of the video. The…