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

Netflix on Linux with Chrome

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#31

Post by tyleregeto »

Retr0spectrum wrote: post #22
revasm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full instructions for reference. Run: wget http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/n/nss/libnss3{_3.16.3-1ubuntu1_amd64,-1d_3.16.3-1ubuntu1_amd64,-nssdb_3.16.3-1ubuntu1_all}.deb sudo dpkg -i libnss3*.deb Create a new Tampermonkey script: // ==UserScript== // @name Netflix HTML5 for Linux // @namespace 0d0a3443-cc79-4f86-bf62-2dac581d2b3a // @version 0.1 // @description Enables HTML5 video support for the Linux…

I tried this, but I just get prompted to install the silverlight plugin. I am using Lubuntu 14.04.

In your account settings, try turning on the HTML5 Player. Its opt-in.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#32

Post by DrJokepu »

themartorana wrote: post #29
finnn wrote: post #28

In other news, bittorrent continues to work on all platforms, without placing any restrictions on what viewers can do.

Including participating in massive copyright infringement. I struggle with the sentiment that if offered no other way to legally consume media, BitTorrent will show them! I can't find "The Money Pit" anywhere but BT. Does that make it ok to download? I don't know. Morally, legally, etc., I've never been quite so torn for quite so long.

I think OP's point was that DRM pushes people to pirate content, regardless of whether this is morally acceptable or not.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#34

Post by gcr »

themartorana wrote: post #29
finnn wrote: post #28

In other news, bittorrent continues to work on all platforms, without placing any restrictions on what viewers can do.

Including participating in massive copyright infringement. I struggle with the sentiment that if offered no other way to legally consume media, BitTorrent will show them! I can't find "The Money Pit" anywhere but BT. Does that make it ok to download? I don't know. Morally, legally, etc., I've never been quite so torn for quite so long.

It's a toughie because there are two evils at work here:

- DRM is its own kind of evil, but only implicitly because it erodes the rights and privacy of the users;

- Copyright infringement is another kind of evil, which is important because the law explicitly says so;

- Just not watching TV shows seems like the easiest option here, but it's boring and doesn't support starving artists.

Which kind of evil is worse?

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#35

Post by jaredsohn »

captaincrunch wrote: post #25

If anyone gets it working, my start-up is doing some interesting things with Netfix: turboflix.com

Your website seems confusing a few ways:

* You only list TV shows in the examples, despite the service offering both movies and shows

* I actually do have all of those shows (or at least most) on my Netflix. Although I see on your Facebook page that the service is perhaps targeted to people in other countries.)

* I am wondering if what your service offers will be legal, especially if you are charging for it (my best guess is that it is some kind of proxy that lets you access international Netflixes, perhaps a little more convenient than existing Chrome extensions in that it might list movies allowed in different countries together.)

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#36

Post by mpyne »

gcr wrote: post #34
themartorana wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including participating in massive copyright infringement. I struggle with the sentiment that if offered no other way to legally consume media, BitTorrent will show them! I can't find "The Money Pit" anywhere but BT. Does that make it ok to download? I don't know. Morally, legally, etc., I've never been quite so torn for quite so long.

It's a toughie because there are two evils at work here: - DRM is its own kind of evil, but only implicitly because it erodes the rights and privacy of the users; - Copyright infringement is another kind of evil, which is important because the law explicitly says so; - Just not watching TV shows seems like the easiest option here, but it's boring and doesn't support starving artists. Which kind of evil is worse?

> Copyright infringement is another kind of evil, which is important because the law explicitly says so;

It's not just the law that makes copyright infringement of various sorts immoral. It is the law, not morals, which gives GPL software strong copyleft, but surely you would agree that it would also be immoral to take GPL software proprietary without the permission of that software's authors?

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#37

Post by rkangel »

DrJokepu wrote: post #32
themartorana wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including participating in massive copyright infringement. I struggle with the sentiment that if offered no other way to legally consume media, BitTorrent will show them! I can't find "The Money Pit" anywhere but BT. Does that make it ok to download? I don't know. Morally, legally, etc., I've never been quite so torn for quite so long.

I think OP's point was that DRM pushes people to pirate content, regardless of whether this is morally acceptable or not.

Fundamentally, I don't think that DRM pushes people to piracy, I think poor user experience does. A lot of that has come out of poor DRM implementations, which is where the problem is. Spotify on the other hand, is based on a form of DRM but as they provide a good app for every platform I want to use (including Linux), and allow you to sync offline (for when I have no internet), I will quite happily give them my money and have no intention of pirating music ever again.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#38

Post by TD-Linux »

Karunamon wrote: post #19
fafner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they mean is that the "Digital Restriction Management in HTML5" proposal is pushed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix into the W3C spec. Apple has simply followed the proposal and implemented it as well. AFAIK Chrome, IE, Safari ship with it. Firefox will follow suite by adding a Restriction Module from Adobe (given Adobe's track record it will certainly be an amazingly fast, flexible, beautiful, efficient, and n…

"No DRM" was never an option. The option was between 1 DRM standard and 50 (so silverlight and widevine and....). The W3C made the most pragmatic choice, here. I think DRM is still crap, but one system is unambiguously better than >1.

Actually, it's 1 DRM _plugin_ standard. There are still 50 DRM standards. Safari ships with Apple's DRM, Chrome ships with Google's DRM (Widevine), IE ships with Microsoft's DRM, Firefox doesn't ship with any DRM (but its EME plugin is only compatible with Adobe DRM).
Post reply on HN