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

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#41

Post by azakai »

josteink wrote: post #20
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…

> Instead of having a plugin-free future with HTML5 we have an even worse situation. Indeed. Now we need to have one plugin, per browser, per operating system supported. Guess which next emerging OS wont be able to fully access "standard-compliant" HTML5? Yeah. All of them. W3C should be thrown to the sharks for this.

Blaming the W3C is less effective than blaming the specific W3C members, and browser vendors, who had the power to push this through. Specifically: Google and Microsoft.

Those two companies formulated EME together with Netflix.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#43

Post by rakoo »

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.

I think his point is rather that DRM asks more from the user (a specific browser, a specific plugin, a specific string to enter in a box) for essentially the same experience.

Oh and you can do less things with a DRM'd media than with a non-DRM'd. Even though you technically have the same rights.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#44

Post by focus »

Doesn't work for me. Error Code: M7063-1913

lsb_release -d: Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS

uname -a: Linux x230 3.13.0-32-generic #57-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15 03:51:08 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

chrome://version: 38.0.2114.2 (Official Build 287444) dev

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#45

Post by fafner »

azakai wrote: post #41
josteink wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of having a plugin-free future with HTML5 we have an even worse situation. Indeed. Now we need to have one plugin, per browser, per operating system supported. Guess which next emerging OS wont be able to fully access "standard-compliant" HTML5? Yeah. All of them. W3C should be thrown to the sharks for this.

Blaming the W3C is less effective than blaming the specific W3C members, and browser vendors, who had the power to push this through. Specifically: Google and Microsoft. Those two companies formulated EME together with Netflix.

I think blaming the W3C is absolutely correct here as well. The W3C has a principle to defend: The open web. And they are simply throwing it overboard by allowing this. TimBL even made a statement in favour of it. Yes, refusing to accept the standard won't change the reality because Google, Microsoft, and Apple are in favour of DRM and they'll do it no matter what the W3C will say. But at least the W3C would stay true to the principles of an open web.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#46

Post by fafner »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #27
girvo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Flash was at least used for stuff other than just DRM, so there was an incentive to get it working across all OSes. Linux is going to struggle once this is adopted, at least open browsers will, and that makes me sad

The openness of the browser has nothing to do with it, the browser provides an interface to the DRM mechanism which could be open or closed source. Open source browsers like firefox already support proprietary plugins such as Flash. If anything this makes Linux support easier, because you no longer have to provide support for an entire virtual machine and all APIs such as Flash or Silverlight. The only software requi…

The DRM mechanism can't really be open source. You could simply change it to write the unencrypted video data to the disk if it were.

A plugin DRM module will also have to do all of the video rendering and displaying. Because if it just hands the unencrypted stream back to the browser then you could change the browser to simply write it to disk.

The relevant DRM mechanisms will come from Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Adobe. Both Apple and Microsoft have no interest in supporting GNU/Linux. You won't get their DRM on GNU/Linux no matter how simple it is. Google seems to ship their DRM now on the GNU/Linux version of Chrome. But I don't know if the license allows using it in other browsers. Which would be hindered by the fact that Google uses their own unspecified PAPPI. Adobe wants to provide a DRM module for Firefox EME mechanism. But we all know from enough bad experience how well Adobe does GNU/Linux support. Flash on GNU/Linux was even worse than on any other system until they simply stopped it. They recently even stopped distributing Acrobat Reader for GNU/Linux. So yeah, great hope there. Even if they compile the module for GNU/Linux because Mozilla asks them to then we can expect the typical Adobe software safety and quality... Remember HTML5 was supposed to rid the world of Flash, Silverlight, and such things. Not force those binary blobs into the spec.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#47

Post by josteink »

fafner wrote: post #45
azakai wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the W3C is less effective than blaming the specific W3C members, and browser vendors, who had the power to push this through. Specifically: Google and Microsoft. Those two companies formulated EME together with Netflix.

I think blaming the W3C is absolutely correct here as well. The W3C has a principle to defend: The open web. And they are simply throwing it overboard by allowing this. TimBL even made a statement in favour of it. Yes, refusing to accept the standard won't change the reality because Google, Microsoft, and Apple are in favour of DRM and they'll do it no matter what the W3C will say. But at least the W3C would stay tru…

The most offensive part about this whole shenanigans is the sheer hypocrisy behind it.

Hollywood and its friend likes to claim that they need DRM to prevent piracy, to prevent freeloaders from getting use of something they shouldn't. Looking at the big picture though, they are the freeloaders and they are shameless about it too.

They are more than eager to freeload on all the good parts about digital media (zero cost distribution, zero cost storage, zero cost reproduction, etc) while they insist that the business around it should still be limited to the ones they had with tangible, physical media and goods.

Not only that, they want to freeload on all the open, accessible, cross-platform technology we have developed and built to sell their restricted content. And they have the balls to demand that these open standard (which has been successful because of their openness), should now be closed to accommodate their needs!

They are hypocrites from end to end. They want and want and want, but are not willing to give an inch. They demand that we give up our freedom and valuable standards. And for what? To be able to see their content on a restricted service while we pretend its not available in a superior DRM-free format illegally everywhere else on the internet.

It's just disgusting.

Why not just let the whole DRM thing go? Let us access the content in a superior, portable format and don't ruin the future of the web over the semantics of how it gets projected onto the customers screen of choice, on their platform of choice.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#48

Post by josteink »

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;

But the intent of copyright law was that society as a whole should be enriched.

Given how the law has been corrupted into a prison for cultural content and a right for the rich to profit, while society as a whole gets poorer and poorer arts-wise, I find it morally just to encourage civil disobedience.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#49

Post by josteink »

rakoo wrote: post #43
DrJokepu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think his point is rather that DRM asks more from the user (a specific browser, a specific plugin, a specific string to enter in a box) for essentially the same experience. Oh and you can do less things with a DRM'd media than with a non-DRM'd. Even though you technically have the same rights.

Oh and you can do less things with a DRM'd media than with a non-DRM'd. Even though you technically have the same rights.

None of the big streaming-services supports the HW I have in my home-stereo rig. All of them supports H264 video and HDMI.

Not offering me H264 content uncrippled is leaving me, as a potential customer, no reason to sign up.

Re: Netflix on Linux with Chrome

#50

Post by josteink »

Slix wrote: post #33

Does this work with only Chrome and not Chromium?

Open-source software can obviously never properly support DRM.

Which is why Mozilla/Firefox was so much against this whole HTML5 DRM bullshit in the first place, and so should you have been to.

Post reply on HN