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

171–180 of 632 posts

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

#171

Post by meditate »

wolfgke wrote: post #140
meditate wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but it doesn't seem like much of a mystery why non-techies don't know about the specific details of why they can't save a streamed movie to watch it offline, or in a non-approved open source video player. That glib attitude of captive audiences is exactly what DRM vendors prey upon. They know exactly how much they can get away with at this point.

> I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but it doesn't seem like much of a mystery why non-techies don't know about the specific details of why they can't save a streamed movie to watch it offline, or in a non-approved open source video player. To me, the mystery is not that the people don't know about these details (these details are indeed somewhat complicated - I agree), but how much they don't care .

Of course they don't care, why would they be given a chance to? The anti-features, inconveniences and limitations are not advertised and are downplayed whenever anyone mentions them.

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

#172

Post by geofft »

jhasse wrote: post #162
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).

Did Metastream ask for a license to redistribute the binary?

We don't know anything about the conversation with Widevine other than that they wrote, "I'm sorry but we're not supporting an open source solution like this". They clearly are supporting an open source solution like Firefox. So what is the difference, and can Metastream be less "like this" and more like Firefox?

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

#173

Post by Angostura »

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…

Mac and PC, Netflix would make their applications available outside the App stores. Apple would have to shut down its Apple TV operation.

Then Apple and Google would get deluged with complaints from their customers and Jailbreaks would once again become popular.

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

#174

Post by int_19h »

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?

It requires a license to actually use. And it looks like they verify your binary's signature in the licensed version.

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

#175

Post by floatboth »

quotemstr wrote: post #22
sureaboutthis wrote: post #4

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?

Yes. It's getting somewhat out of date though (e.g. current versions of Steam can't connect to the network)

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

#177

Post by jrockway »

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…

I'm pretty sure some method Netflix uses is broken anyway. People don't seem to have trouble uploading 4k rips to Usenet. (Though I haven't actually checked recently.)

We were sold DRM as "the evil legacy studios are evil and make us use DRM". Well, now that Netflix produces their own content and it's still DRM'd... I guess that isn't really the reasoning.

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

#179

Post by GuB-42 »

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.

The W3C isn't to blame. No one is to blame, really.

We have DRM, we hate it but it's there, and it serves a purpose. If it is your intellectual property, you get to decide how it is used. And if you don't want to make copying too easy because you think that it will get you more money, that's your right.

The goal of the W3C is not to make to make a political statement about the rightness or wrongness of DRM. They are here to create standards that respond to use cases. And unfortunately, copyrighted content diffusion is one use case, and content owners want DRM.

And if you read the standard they came up with, it is not that bad. They managed to isolate the "evil DRM" part well enough without completely destroying its effectiveness. They also didn't require any proprietary component, though services can require them (that's what happened in the article).

Using WebAssembly (which is essentially optimized JS) for DRM is a terrible idea IMHO. DRM, to be effective, usually requires access to protected system components. It means that to make an effective enough DRM to be accepted by content providers (which is the entire point of the standard), we would need to give WebAssembly way to much power.

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

#180

Post by microcolonel »

sabujp wrote: post #113
Zak wrote: post #101

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

More like locks on a motel room.
Post reply on HN