121–130 of 632 posts
let's address the elephant in the room. Google got the authority from everyone here who accepted chrome and IE DRM by default, to the point that even Firefox was forced to give in, so you all could be sedated by Netflix and other DRMed content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how do open source browsers like Chromium and Firefox do this? Surely if they have access to the blackbox, then anyone does? And if they don't, it means you can't watch Netflix on some major browsers.
Not sure if it's still the case, but it used to be that Firefox on Linux could only stream 720p videos.
Widevine is offered with different levels, depending on the length of the secure path. On mainline Linux, there is no secure path to the screen AFAIK, so you can always read the unencrypted video from a recompiled graphics driver, and as such it only is supported in Widevine's lowest level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird thing about this is I can find a high-quality torrent for anything on Netflix in under a minute.
DRM are like locks on a house, just keeps honest people out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, if the Director had overridden the majority of the membership, the browser vendors would've shipped something anyway That's fine. It's better that the burden for maintaining non-standard plugins be put on the sites and browsers that choose to do that, rather than be placed on everyone else.
How would that have improved the current situation? The videos that Metastream wants to play would still have been DRM'd and would still be playable in the mainstream browsers. What would the benefit have been? What burden is being placed on people now that wouldn't be placed on people in that scenario?
The argument that platforms have to do this for competitive reasons is doublethink. If the experience is worse and that will cause customers to flee, how is it that they would only flee from the platforms that don't have DRM but not the content providers that require it? Wouldn't that create a huge market opportunity for new DRM-free studios, who would then out-compete the traditional ones by being available on all platforms instead of only on Insecure Expensive Proprietary Slow Cableco Platform Nobody Likes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame Google and Microsoft. They were the people who created the specification, and pushed for it, when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum. Even if the W3C hadn't approved it, that's two of the big four browser vendors who are committing to implementing it anyways, which is enough to guarantee a de facto standard anyways.
No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Having worked with various DRM teams I know that they have to treat their code as if its the most secret code in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Truth hurts. Is it too late to open up the web? I've already switched to Firefox.
Firefox uses Google's Widevine for DRM content: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm "Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
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.