Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

blog.samuelmaddock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 632 posts

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#151

Post by gpm »

cmsimike wrote: post #40

I don't know if this will be helpful to you but an open source media player, Kodi, recently added support for Netflix in the latest version of the app (by implementing a DRM engine for people to use). This requires the use of the widevine library which then downloads things behind the scenes upon use (I believe). https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=329767 I can't imagine Google gave the OK to Kodi to use widevin…

On a related note here's an arch linux package that rips Widewvine out of chrome and adds it to chromium - download the source files by clicking the "Download snapshot" button on the right, or just view the main script by clicking "View PKGBUILD" also on the right.

Edit: Forgot link https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-widevine/

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#152

Post by jhasse »

mcv wrote: post #80
thefounder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Firefox will ask you to download a proprietary blob which is needed for DRM the first time you visit Netflix.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#153

Post by toyg »

Egraveline wrote: post #129
kllrnohj wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So did Firefox have to ask permission from google? Or do they just do it without asking? Sorry I don’t know much about this.

I suspect the issue is that Firefox uses Widevine in a straightforward manner (play the content to one browser), whereas OP’s scenario needs some sort of additional insight in what the plugin is doing.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#154

Post by jhasse »

pmontra wrote: post #141
sherincall wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if it's still the case, but it used to be that Firefox on Linux could only stream 720p videos.

Firefox on Ubuntu 16.04 NVIDIA proprietary driver here. I searched for 1080p on YouTube and the first result is this harmless video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQuhA5ZCV9M It started at 720p, then I switched it to 1080p and it started playing at that resolution. However I didn't count the lines and I don't know if this is the kind of streaming you're writing about. Maybe Netflix? I can't check that.

Most YouTube videos (including the one you linked) don't use DRM, that's why 1080p works on Linux. Netflix only works with up to 720p on Linux.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#155

Post by clarkmoody »

jhasse wrote: post #144
tiraniddo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01…

This is the correct solution. The big tech companies control the distribution channels. Currently, they bend to the requirements of large content producers. If they leaned the other way, toward open source and DRM-free distribution, the producers would have no choice but to comply.

Of course, content producers could run back to the state for more protection (as they always do) and get legislation forcing browser makers to comply. And around and around it goes.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#156

Post by jhasse »

qntty wrote: post #84
thefounder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What video content are we talking about here? HTML5 video?

Yes, with DRM. You can check if it's used by looking at the address bar: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r...

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#157

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tptacek wrote: post #134
sabujp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM are like locks on a house, just keeps honest people out

Ok? That’s a strong argument in favor, isn’t it?

You've missed the joke. In the DRM case the honest people are the ones who should be allowed in, but the DRM only allows the pirates in.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#158

Post by deckar01 »

avmich wrote: post #75
deckar01 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Can't those proprietary binaries be used in another browser? Is the API known?

> licensed

The author can't get a license.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#159

Post by pera »

tiraniddo wrote: post #92
jcranmer wrote: post #53

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…

> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc.

More specifically, those associated with the MPAA and the RIAA.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#160

Post by jerf »

jcranmer wrote: post #53
mmastrac wrote: post #12

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.

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.

"when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum"

Does Netflix DRM even "work"? I've never personally seriously looked around for how to break it, but I note there are still plenty of people who seem to manage to review Netflix-based shows on YouTube with video clips of sufficient quality [1], and at least some of the reviewers in question I am fairly confident aren't getting any sort of privileged backdoor access or anything.

Is it "anyone can crack with a smidge of effort" or "it's really hard but it spreads once cracked"? I'm not asking for a lot of details of the crack per se, just general details of how successful it can be said to be in practice.

[1] I'm not claiming they aren't necessarily re-re-encoded by the time they get to me, but if they are, I can't tell for sure, so I'm going with "sufficient quality" as a description.

Post reply on HN