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

161–170 of 632 posts

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

#161

Post by chinathrow »

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…

Why would they need to remove the DRM playback app in your scenario?

If they would only remove it from the browsers, they would start pushing their native applications like Netflix for Linux, Netflix for Windows, Netflix for Mac. And browsers would be free of their DRM which causes all this.

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

#162

Post by jhasse »

geofft wrote: post #95

> Google, the creators of the open source browser Chrome, won’t allow DRM in an open source project. Chrome is not an open-source browser. Chromium is, and Chromium doesn't have Widevine support. Download and sandbox the Widevine binary blob the same way that Firefox does. Done.

> Download and sandbox the Widevine binary blob the same way that Firefox does. Done.

Mozilla has a license to redistribute the binary. You can't simply do that (legally).

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

#163

Post by psadauskas »

gloflo wrote: post #118
sabujp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Except the lock is remotely controlled by your adversary. And your house also belongs to them. According to your analogy.

And if you bought something from them, they're permitted to come in and take it away from you whenever they want.

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

#164

Post by rjmunro »

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…

Simple: You'd have to install a plugin or a separate special app to watch video, like the bad old days of RealPlayer.

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

#165

Post by kbenson »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #149
gsnedders wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it have made the user experience of DRM any worse than it currently is, though? The DRM module would still ship with Chrome and Edge (and likely Safari too, given Apple became involved pretty quickly), you'd still need multiple different streaming formats (in the form of different DRM formats) as you do today, and maybe you'd need slightly different JS codepath per-browser too (but that's not a big difference t…

If the W3C making the right decision would make them irrelevant then what has actually happened is that they're already irrelevant, and becoming a rubber stamp on bad ideas only serves to prove that and erode their credibility. Moreover, such organizations are made up of their members, and it's up to the members to do the right thing as well. Nobody had to volunteer to be the first to add this gunk to their browser.…

This is just the age old discussion of whether it's better to capitulate in small ways so you can steer a group away from bad behavior/decisions later or to make a stand on principle to draw attention to the current bad decisions.

As much as some people like to say one is better than the other, I think the answer is always "it depends". Unfortunately, it depends not only on the relative power and momentum behind the current problem when deciding, but also on unknowns such as what will happen in the future.

It's hard for me to find too much fault in them deciding that they would rather stay somewhat relevant to the process than become obviously irrelevant (if that was indeed the thought process), as there's still a lot they can affect in the future. Armchair quarterbacking about what they should have done isn't too useful in my eyes.

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

#166

Post by geofft »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #126
geofft wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Making the user experience of DRM worse is better because then fewer people will use it. If the platforms all made it so that you have to solder a new chip into your phone before you can play DRM content, there would be a lot less DRM. 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 fle…

> If the platforms all made it so that you have to solder a new chip into your phone before you can play DRM content, there would be a lot less DRM.

I mean, yes, but why would they do that?

> 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?

You're assuming that content is fungible. If I want to watch Game of Thrones, I want to watch Game of Thrones, not "Winter Dragon," and "Winter Dragon" being DRM-free won't incentivize me to watch it.

Furthermore, development of media content is expensive and requires a bunch of up-front capital / investment. So while there is a market opportunity, it isn't obvious that taking advantage of it without connections to the existing industry is a profitable strategy.

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

#167

Post by hombre_fatal »

0815test wrote: post #66
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree; good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable, and if that is the case then users do not care. Who does care about DRM is pirates and content creators whose content is shown without them earning off of it. Yes I am aware of fair use exceptions, but fair use should exempt a user from getting sued over using a fragment of copyrighted content; it does NOT force a content creator from offering their content open f…

> good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable, and if that is the case then users do not care. Then there's no such thing as good DRM, since many users will want to make use of the content they've paid for (either monetarily, or perhaps indirectly via ads) in flexible and open ways that a proprietary DRM system will not allow. Fair use is part of this, but not the only issue.

Meanwhile I bet everyone here and /r/gaming uses Steam without thinking about it where you can't even click and drag an .exe to your buddy on a long flight and you need to log into it every X days for it to let you play offline.

To be clear, I'm definitely happy to support gog.com and thankful that they exist and are successful.

But look how many HNers will bring up Kindles and buying books for them on Amazon where you can only "lend" a book from kindle to kindle (forget drag and drop) through their proprietary system.

Every day 90%+ of people are happy with systems that use DRM and don't even notice it exists. Most people just don't ever go off the rails.

It's one of the worse things about DRM: trying to position your product as DRM-free and people just go "wtf is that? it never bothered me before."

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

#168

Post by floatboth »

jhasse wrote: post #154
pmontra wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure YouTube doesn't support DRM at all. Premium originals (e.g. Mind Field) play in 4K for me on FreeBSD (for which no one has ever compiled Widevine or anything like that)

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

#170

Post by grapeli23 »

merb wrote: post #114

Basically it's possible to download Google Chrome and extract it: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/?h=chromium-wide... Basically Arch Linux Downloads Google Chrome, Extracts the *.so file and puts it into the chromium lib directory. (This could've been done in his own browser aswell.

There is no such package 'chromium-widevine' in the Arch Linux repository.

sudo pacman -S chromium-widevine

error: target not found: chromium-widevine

Post reply on HN