Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome 37+ already had the necessary DRM extentions, but it only worked with a recent version of the NSS library. It was possible to play HTML5 video on Netflix in Linux since then, but you needed to fake your user agent to say you were on Windows. The reason it works now is that Ubuntu 14.04 (the latest LTS version) has updated to the necessary version of NSS, so Netflix will serve HTML5 video to the standard Chrome…
Where does the decryption actually happen? Is it in the CPU chip?
Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
71–80 of 105 posts
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#72Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#73Firefox is the default browser for Ubuntu. A lot of users wouldn't probably be bothered to install Chrome earlier - now they will. This is bad news.
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#74Has the DRM for Chrome been cracked yet? It seems that having the complete data flow from the server sent packets through to the displayed data would make it relatively easy to work back and crack it sufficiently to make saving drm-ed streams to a local compressed video format possible. Obviously you could use a modified video driver or grab the data from the actual display - the problem with that would be speed and…
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#75Has the DRM for Chrome been cracked yet? It seems that having the complete data flow from the server sent packets through to the displayed data would make it relatively easy to work back and crack it sufficiently to make saving drm-ed streams to a local compressed video format possible. Obviously you could use a modified video driver or grab the data from the actual display - the problem with that would be speed and…
So, we just smile, and nod, and say, "My, that's quite a lovely DRM setup you have", and it doesn't stop anyone from getting anything for free that they want. We just don't acknowledge that too loudly in public.
Seems like an absurd waste of time for so many people to be involved in implementing this.
So it goes.
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#76Why do these "Linux gets Netflix" stories not have the same bad attitude from folks as the "W3C caves to DRM" stories? They're the same topic, essentially.
Without DRM, someone will write a script to suck down all new Netflix videos and immediately post them to e.g. Popcorn Time. Then Netflix will drop Linux support. It's a shame that so many people in the OSS community have such an asymmetric and hypocritical view about paying people for their work and respecting creators' licensing intents. If I take a GPLed GitHub repo, clone it, incorporate it into my commercial clo…
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without DRM, someone will write a script to suck down all new Netflix videos and immediately post them to e.g. Popcorn Time. Then Netflix will drop Linux support. It's a shame that so many people in the OSS community have such an asymmetric and hypocritical view about paying people for their work and respecting creators' licensing intents. If I take a GPLed GitHub repo, clone it, incorporate it into my commercial clo…
OTOH, I don't think appeasing Hollywood will help anyone but Hollywood. Their thinking is grounded in ideology not economics; if their content is pirated they think the DRM isn't working so they demand stronger DRM. If their content isn't being pirated they think the DRM must be working so it should be maintained or strengthened.
These people aren't dumb, and they pay a lot of attention to customer behavior just like marketing professionals do in any industry.
They also don't necessarily like DRM for intrinsic reasons. It's actually cumbersome. There are some interests in the industry that like it -- such as DRM vendors themselves and various hardware/console/software interests -- but the actual content producers are largely indifferent to it in itself.
All they want is for people to actually pay for their content. At the biz level they don't care how or why.
If users paid and refrained from engaging in bulk, industrial-scale piracy without DRM, then DRM would wither and die. There'd just be no value proposition to it -- it would add a layer of complexity, cost, and inconvenience to no benefit. You think these guys want to license an expensive proprietary DRM platform if their data shows it makes no difference in their sales numbers?
You've seen this happen within one or two semi-closed ecosystems. iTunes no longer uses DRM because data showed that users of iTunes who purchased music on iTunes were no more likely to pirate it without DRM than with it. But my guess is that users of iTunes who also purchase on iTunes are people who are generally in the habit of purchasing their music/movies and like the convenience of being able to do it with one click. These results from that specific user group do not necessarily translate out to the entire general public on all platforms.
I've also heard that Amazon has made DRM optional on Kindle and that many publishers don't check that box, but I've never published on Kindle so I'm not sure.
But I guarantee you that if Netflix allowed HTML5 video with no DRM mechanism you'd have a direct scripted cron-jobbed pipeline from Netflix to Popcorn Time and similar industrial-scale piracy ecosystems. I know it, and they know it, and that's why you're not gonna see DRM-free open Netflix or Hulu until people stop behaving in this way.
I mean come on people. It's cheap. A movie rental on iTunes (much more expensive than Netflix) costs what a freaking latte costs at Starbucks. Netflix is like 1/10th the cost of cable. Grow up. People have to eat and art must be a viable profession (with you know benefits, 401ks, etc.) or you're not going to get much of it beyond garage quality.
Yeah, record companies and movie studios can be jerks just like VCs and such, but all you're accomplishing is to bust the bottom out of the industry. When that happens, scarcity-driven thinking takes over and people act like even bigger jerks and everyone gets squeezed even more. You're not empowering the artist -- you're moving the artist even further down the totem pole while reducing the amount of money that's even available to trickle down to them.
VCs might be jerks sometimes but think about what would happen to the software industry if they disappeared or were no longer able to raise funds? What do you think programmer salaries would do over time? What would happen to innovation? What would happen to VC behavior if they were squeezed even more?
The stupid thing is I've actually seen people pay more to pirate via HideMyAss-type VPNs and torrenting VPSes (e.g. Digital Ocean nodes) than it would have cost them to just buy the damn feed. Now there's an ideology for you. (Not talking about people who use VPSes to watch outside the U.S.... that's a different issue. I'm talking about people here in America spending over $15/month to chug and seed pirated torrents instead of getting a Netflix account.)
(Again not aimed at anyone in particular in this thread, but at prevalent behaviors in the community.)
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#78Why do these "Linux gets Netflix" stories not have the same bad attitude from folks as the "W3C caves to DRM" stories? They're the same topic, essentially.
My guess would be that in the "Linux gets Netflix" story, the positive angle ("I get Netflix!") is specific and concrete, while the negative ("More DRM, yuck") is more abstract. Whereas in the "W3C caves to DRM" story, it's flipped; the negative is specific and concrete ("Standards body kowtows to corporate overlords"), while the positive ("maybe someday that will mean I can watch video on Linux") is more abstract.
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#79Firefox is the default browser for Ubuntu. A lot of users wouldn't probably be bothered to install Chrome earlier - now they will. This is bad news.
why is this "bad news"?
Re: Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess would be that in the "Linux gets Netflix" story, the positive angle ("I get Netflix!") is specific and concrete, while the negative ("More DRM, yuck") is more abstract. Whereas in the "W3C caves to DRM" story, it's flipped; the negative is specific and concrete ("Standards body kowtows to corporate overlords"), while the positive ("maybe someday that will mean I can watch video on Linux") is more abstract.
I'd say lots of people are extremely dogmatic when its comes to certain topics. They will condemn things like DRM without even considering the positive aspects. I like to see DRM the pragmatic way: Without it, neither cheap streaming of music and movies nor would cheap games via services like Steam would be possible.