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

351–360 of 632 posts

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

#351

Post by simias »

Cyph0n wrote: post #264
simias wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make good points but: >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. They seem to think that but is there any truth to it? I do pirate some series/movies from time to time (mostly out of convenience) and you can get high quality rips of pretty much anything mere hours after it's available on streaming sites anyway. So what is this DRM supposed…

> So what is this DRM supposed to achieve? I think DRM in general was never really designed to completely thwart piracy. The goal is actually to delay the pirated version as much as possible and to raise the barrier to entry when pirated versions are eventually released into the wild.

My point was that, for movies and TV shows at least, this simply doesn't work. The delay is small enough that it's usually negligible (a few hours in my experience). For live events (especially sporting events) of course that's enough to make pirating impractical, but for the new episode of Game of Thrones it's really not much.

Furthermore I assume that most of that latency is not due to the time required for pirates to break the DRM but rather the time for the original riper to encode the file and share it through the pirate food chain until it reaches the public trackers that I use. You'd still have to wait a little while to get your pirate file if you don't have a subscription to the official streaming service.

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

#352

Post by jonas21 »

Endy wrote: post #299
Cyph0n wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what is this DRM supposed to achieve? I think DRM in general was never really designed to completely thwart piracy. The goal is actually to delay the pirated version as much as possible and to raise the barrier to entry when pirated versions are eventually released into the wild.

Instead of that, it's turned pirates into heroes of the common person. After all, why pay and be limited in the way you can watch the thing you paid for when unlimited access exists for free?

> why pay and be limited in the way you can watch the thing you paid for when unlimited access exists for free?

Oh I dunno... have you tried asking one of Netflix's 140M subscribers? Or the 26M people who use Amazon prime video?

The point of DRM isn't to make it impossible to pirate things -- it's to make it difficult enough to get pirated content that most people would prefer to pay a few bucks a month to watch things via a channel where rights holders are compensated. And by that measure, it seems to be working pretty well.

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

#353

Post by Mindwipe »

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…

> I can't imagine Google gave the OK to Kodi to use widevine so maybe you can see what they did?

Kodi uses the OS native implementation of the DRM, or Chromium with Widevine.

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

#354

Post by EB66 »

yellowapple wrote: post #343
hluska wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a few points: 1. Why do you have to be so rude? Maybe this isn’t intentional, but your words are mocking and insulting. Do you actually think you could change someone’s mind spouting off like that? If so, you don’t understand humans. If not, that comment was a giant waste of time. 2. If the way you spoke to this person represents how you wish to conduct yourself, perhaps it would be wise to remove the ‘we’re h…

That comment didn't really read as any more rude than your own, IMO. Maybe you're just responding to rudeness with rudeness, though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

I agree with hluska. I also found numbsafari's comment unnecessarily rude and flippant. I'm sure Bainbridge Health would not appreciate being represented like that in a public forum.

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

#355

Post by danShumway »

saurik wrote: post #338
danShumway wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still claim two differences on the user agent side of things: First, any browser can report any user agent they want. There are a number of examples of browsers faking or changing user agents to get around sites that try to differentiate based on those strings. Second, while any individual web site can implement logic based on the user agent, that's the sole choice of the web operator. By restricting Widevine…

Right! And when the headline was Google uses user agents to block Windows Phone from accessing Google Maps (along with reports that changing the user agent made the software work fine), we all agreed on swift and decisive action against Google /s. https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/

Oof, rereading this article in the present just hurts.

To be fair, the 2013 ecosystem was a lot more Google friendly than the 2019 ecosystem is. I'm sure the average non-HN reader still wouldn't care today, but I would at least hope HN itself would have a different reaction.

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

#356

Post by 0815test »

jedberg wrote: post #331
throwaway2048 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix only content isn't "rare" anymore, sorry if I don't purchase this particular red herring. DRM benefits Netflix just as much, if not even more than it does traditional media companies.

It’s very rare. I’ll bet you can’t name a single show that Netflix produces. Remember all those big name shows are produced by other people and then sold exclusively to Netflix. DRM does not benefit Netflix. It’s complicated and takes a lot of resources to run. They’d much rather not have to deal with it at all. Having DRM does not gain them any customers — in fact it loses them some. But it’s the only way they can g…

Come on, that can't possibly be right. If they can get shows sold "exclusively" to them, why can't they get shows sold to them without DRM requirements?

(The closest I can get to an explanation is that the "exclusivity" deal might be limited to online streaming platforms only, and whoever is selling the content still worries about everything else. But streaming is a significant and growing portion of all media consumption (and could be even more so, were it not for that pesky DRM), so I'm extremely skeptical that this would be a real issue.)

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

#357

Post by r3bl »

freedomben wrote: post #282
kwindla wrote: post #256

Let's add the US Congress and the EU to the long list of parties to blame for the DRM situation. "Reverse engineering" software for the purposes of "circumventing" copyright is illegal. "Circumventing" is much more broadly defined than it should be. It's not just illegal to redistribute copyrighted material. That's the point of copyright and has been the case for a long time. It's also illegal to watch/consume conten…

Completely agree. Those government believe that protecting intellectual property is necessary to further human and societal progress. I won't take a position on whether I agree with that or not. However, based on that premise they've instituted rules to "protect" intellectual property, but unfortunately they're so weighted toward the "owner" of the IP that they do (IMHO serious) harm to regular users and consumers. I…

> ...but unfortunately they're so weighted toward the "owner" of the IP that they do (IMHO serious) harm to regular users and consumers.

To the established owners of IP. If you're not an established creator, you're going to be on the side that gets hurt by the IP. Some IP claims are gonna hit you sooner or later, and even if they're complete bullshit, you won't be able to do anything about them.

Established owners can generate enough of a fuss that they could cause an outrage big enough for some actual human to look into your issues, but if you're not big enough for that... tough luck. Try again from scratch once Google cuts you out. This happens regularly across their products, be it Google Play, YouTube, or Chrome's extensions store.

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

#358

Post by simias »

Roujo wrote: post #339
simias wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make good points but: >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. They seem to think that but is there any truth to it? I do pirate some series/movies from time to time (mostly out of convenience) and you can get high quality rips of pretty much anything mere hours after it's available on streaming sites anyway. So what is this DRM supposed…

> So what is this DRM supposed to achieve? It's a good point, but I believe DRM isn't just about piracy. It's also about control. I read a good article about this once, but I can't find it anywhere right now so I'll summarize what I remember. As long as DRM exists, if you want to make a Blu-ray player you have to go and ask the Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator for their blessing, so that you can…

That makes a lot of sense actually, I guess my take was a bit naive. I hadn't considered that it wasn't just about preventing piracy, it's about controlling how the content is consumed. Thank you for this insight.

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

#359

Post by Mindwipe »

danShumway wrote: post #311
ktm5j wrote: post #253

I also find the title to be rather sensational.. "I tried creating a web browser" ^ "Google blocked me" implies that Google blocked them from creating a web browser.. which is not the case.

If a single company can effectively decide whether a bunch of 3rd party sites that they don't control work on your browser, how is that any different? Google is effectively deciding that anyone other than pre-approved browsers can't play Netflix content. If an ISP fully embraced the Net Neutrality repeal and started blocking video content, and someone posted on HN that ISPs were "blocking them from building a streami…

> If a single company can effectively decide whether a bunch of 3rd party sites that they don't control work on your browser, how is that any different?

Because those third party sites choose to utilise closed software from that company. And Netflix doesn't only utilise Widevine as a DRM, it uses several different DRM systems, so Google don't have control over anything.

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

#360

Post by yellowapple »

glennpratt wrote: post #320
ryanolsonx wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon has customers that they sell products to. Google has products (us) that they sell info about to others. It's kind of a big difference.

This is such a silly comment repeated in every thread possible. Google and Amazon both have paid customer facing products with human support and advertising. They aren't remotely exclusive.

> Google and Amazon both have paid customer facing products

And this ain't really one of 'em, last I checked. It's freeware.

Post reply on HN