11 ms·

Play Netflix on Linux with Firefox

140 points by kungfudoi 10y ago

simopaa 10y ago
I can confirm that this seems to work, although adding the spoofer somehow messed with the Netflix UI loading so that it loads maybe 1/10 previews and is otherwise all black.. Shame that it still requires spoofing the user agent. I would rather not fiddle around with that whenever I log in or out of Netflix, but would also like to send actual information to show that Firefox is being used..
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > Shame that it still requires spoofing the user agent. I would rather not fiddle around with that whenever I log in or out of Netflix, Several Firefox extensions allow you to easily switch the User-Agent, and even set a per-site User-Agent string, so that you always use a given User-Agent for a given site. > but would also like to send actual information to show that Firefox is being used.. If you really care, you could experiment with the accepted User-Agent strings, and see if you can add a "really Firefox" comment or similar without losing access.
dangmurderparty 10y ago
I have the same problem with this as I do with WINE, which is that spoofs like this still ultimately reward products that didn't consider Linux first, and therefore are unacceptable and hard to justify spending on or using.
MayeulC 10y ago
Sorry for the obligatory anti-DRM content, but I have to defend my right from this poor management scheme. Stay off my loan, DRM. I unchecked this box myself when installing Firefox on Windows as well (Where it seems enabled by default). Seriously, I have no words to describe the hoops content providers want us to get trough, so that we can play our "legally owned" (well, it technically is closer to a lease nowadays) content. Moreover, if it works on Firefox/Linux, how can they prevent someone grabbing the video from X and the audio from Alsa? What is the usefulness of DRM in the first place, in this case?
- Toenex 10y ago
  >Moreover, if it works on Firefox/Linux, how can they prevent someone grabbing the video from X and the audio from Alsa? What is the usefulness of DRM in the first place, in this case? This is such an important flaw in all DRM. At some point all this digital wonderment has to be turned in to light and noise. This is the weakest point in the chain and it only takes one person with a decent re-recording setup to create a copy and then distribute it for any DRM to be bypassed. A £50 mic setup in a home studio will allow a good enough copy of most pop music to be made. Even if the hardware was in on the DRM game (looking at you Apple), my ears and eyes are not.
  - sgift 10y ago
    That's nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole DRM is not there to make it impossible, but to make it inconvenient, to copy the things, so as long as it is "harder" with DRM than without it will persist.
    - loudmax 10y ago
      Agreed. They don't need to make it impossible, they just need to make it inconvenient enough so for most users, copying stuff out of DRM isn't worth the hassle. This cuts both ways. It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region.
      - sgift 10y ago
        > It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region. Absolutely. One of the reasons for Netflix success is that it is so simple to use compared to alternatives. Open, click, watch.
      - Toenex 10y ago
        Yes, but the question is do you even need the DRM or is the 'copy hassle' sufficient? You only need one person willing and able to subvert the DRM to make and then distribute an unrestricted version. Individuals don't need to 'unDRM' content themselves it's out there if they want and know how to get it. I think that what DRM provides is the illusion of control. This illusion is good enough to allow Netflix and similar companies to gain access to other peoples content upon which they build a very convenient system for media consumption by anybody who can use a TV.
ramshorns 10y ago
So Firefox includes the ability to play DRM-encumbered content. Is it implemented using proprietary software? Do all Firefox builds include this? It seems similar to Encrypted Media Extensions, which I thought wasn't a web standard yet.
- hsivonen 10y ago
  Firefox for Windows, Mac and Linux (x86/x86_64) can play DRM content using optional proprietary third-party plug-ins. Firefox itself as distributed by Mozilla is Free Software. In the case of EME-exposed plug-ins, Firefox handles the plug-in download for you. In the case of NPAPI, the download is up to the user.
- stonogo 10y ago
  Mozilla bascially absconded from the implementation of any video-related web standard whatsoever. After years of wasting everyone's time they finally caved and shipped Cisco's h264 implementation. Google's Widevine (hilariously marketed as a 'video optimizer') DRM platform is also not-quite-built-in-but-just-a-click-away. This has the result of suppressing the development of free implementations and further clenches Intel's x86 dominance, but Mozilla has stated they do not care. All their hundreds of millions of dollars and their thousand-plus employees are busy with other, more important things.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  This article is about Firefox using the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) API, not any other DRM content.
valarauca1 10y ago
I tried this. It works _kind of_. I have 3 monitors, and Netflix stubbornly refused to play until I had unplugged 2. Had the same issue on my MacBook. Have a second display because you want to watch Netflix + do something else? NOPE! Now with the price increase I'm really wondering why I keep my subscription.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I suppose it's some DRM bullshit. I happily run Netflix on a 2-monitor Linux PC and have no problem fullscreening it on one while working on the other.
- manarth 10y ago
  I've used Netflix on a mac mini with 2 monitors, and a MBP with an external display, and haven't had any issues. Could it be related to the connection cable? I've been connecting to external monitors with HDMI and display-port, which both support HDCP. Is it possible that playback get disabled if it detects a non-HDCP-compliant connection?
- cryptarch 10y ago
  Dude, you need a family account to play on three separate displays! Do you want to bankrupt the movie industry? Because that's how you bankrupt the movie industry. /s
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  I can use Netflix just fine with Laptop + external monitor on Linux with Chrome, even if I connect the monitor via VGA (just tried it). I only get 720p content that way, though—probably because VGA doesn't exactly have HDCP certification ;)
gravitypickles 10y ago
A bit off topic, but since I saw some complaints about DRM, Mozilla does distribute an "EME" free version of the browser also. This disables the plugin download and removes the checkbox altogether. The only place I've ever found it was via the ftp (or http to the ftp site): Example for the latest version as of this post: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/50.1.0/ https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/50.1.0/ just look for the EME free folders. Also the 'learn more page': https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm edit: more about the subject - https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
- cpeterso 10y ago
  The only difference between the "EME-free" and regular version of Firefox is the default value of the "media.eme.enabled" about:config pref. This pref is also disabled by default on Linux. When this pref is disabled, Firefox won't automatically download the Google Widevine CDM or expose the EME API to web content. If you already have Firefox installed, just unchecking the "Play DRM content" setting in about:preferences#content will have the same effect without requiring you to install a special build of Firefox.
teekert 10y ago
So... Netflix on the Raspberry Pi? Bought a Chromecast just a tad to early?
cryptarch 10y ago
I don't think this is the right direction to work in, though it solves an immediate practical problem. I'm exploring ways to share media with family and good friends (legal per fair use), I'm currently looking at easy-to-understand caching models, where you have a Spotify-like player functionality with a meta-library composed of your own library and those of your friends, and a way to manage which media to store/cache where. I also think the problem of P2P voting/curation/moderation is very interesting. I'm looking for ways to combine something like a web of trust with extra user-provided metadata, as a way to have a P2P library of content (which can be anything, forum posts, recipes, rich media) with P2P meta-library to store votes and signatures, where the moderation is tweakable by and transparent to all participants, because it's a function of the meta-library.
- alex_duf 10y ago
  You mean you want eDonkey?
  - cryptarch 10y ago
    No, I want a platform for decentralized apps that is capable of moderation/voting. eDonkey still uses central servers.
    - MayeulC 10y ago
      This actually is a very interesting idea. It makes me think of popcorntime, for which I wish the movies industry had embraced the model. You can still perform some DRM "check" (check the user's credentials, and allow/deny access to the content) without embedding DRM in The content itself. I can't promise anything, but the platform you are talking about sounds quite interesting; would you be willing to share some more details (privately, maybe)?
      - cryptarch 10y ago
        Yes, PopcornTime gave me the starting point to the idea. I still don't get why they choose to use a centralized API instead of a dynamic (as in, mutable and identified by public key and not content) P2P JSON file, I should probably open an issue. I don't think I've sufficiently fleshed it out yet, but I'll let you know when I have something coherent.
this-dang-guy 10y ago
Not sure I get the point - Netflix with Chrome on Linux just plain works. I use it all the time. Stop trying to make Firefox happen. It's a rapidly dying browser. I see less than 10% of the hits on the sites I manage from FF.
- this-dang-guy 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:Browser_usage_share,_2009%E2%80%932016,_StatCounter.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m... Don't believe me? Fine. Pretend your little echo chamber is the whole world. I have better things to do with my time.
ggregoire 10y ago
Firefox and Chrome are still limited to 720p. I use Safari only for Netflix... https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742

140 points by kungfudoi 10y ago

I can confirm that this seems to work, although adding the spoofer somehow messed with the Netflix UI loading so that it loads maybe 1/10 previews and is otherwise all black.. Shame that it still requires spoofing the user agent. I would rather not fiddle around with that whenever I log in or out of Netflix, but would also like to send actual information to show that Firefox is being used..

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> Shame that it still requires spoofing the user agent. I would rather not fiddle around with that whenever I log in or out of Netflix, Several Firefox extensions allow you to easily switch the User-Agent, and even set a per-site User-Agent string, so that you always use a given User-Agent for a given site. > but would also like to send actual information to show that Firefox is being used.. If you really care, you could experiment with the accepted User-Agent strings, and see if you can add a "really Firefox" comment or similar without losing access.

dangmurderparty 10y ago

I have the same problem with this as I do with WINE, which is that spoofs like this still ultimately reward products that didn't consider Linux first, and therefore are unacceptable and hard to justify spending on or using.

MayeulC 10y ago

Sorry for the obligatory anti-DRM content, but I have to defend my right from this poor management scheme. Stay off my loan, DRM. I unchecked this box myself when installing Firefox on Windows as well (Where it seems enabled by default). Seriously, I have no words to describe the hoops content providers want us to get trough, so that we can play our "legally owned" (well, it technically is closer to a lease nowadays) content. Moreover, if it works on Firefox/Linux, how can they prevent someone grabbing the video from X and the audio from Alsa? What is the usefulness of DRM in the first place, in this case?

Toenex 10y ago
>Moreover, if it works on Firefox/Linux, how can they prevent someone grabbing the video from X and the audio from Alsa? What is the usefulness of DRM in the first place, in this case? This is such an important flaw in all DRM. At some point all this digital wonderment has to be turned in to light and noise. This is the weakest point in the chain and it only takes one person with a decent re-recording setup to create a copy and then distribute it for any DRM to be bypassed. A £50 mic setup in a home studio will allow a good enough copy of most pop music to be made. Even if the hardware was in on the DRM game (looking at you Apple), my ears and eyes are not.
- sgift 10y ago
  That's nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole DRM is not there to make it impossible, but to make it inconvenient, to copy the things, so as long as it is "harder" with DRM than without it will persist.
  - loudmax 10y ago
    Agreed. They don't need to make it impossible, they just need to make it inconvenient enough so for most users, copying stuff out of DRM isn't worth the hassle. This cuts both ways. It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region.
    - sgift 10y ago
      > It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region. Absolutely. One of the reasons for Netflix success is that it is so simple to use compared to alternatives. Open, click, watch.
    - Toenex 10y ago
      Yes, but the question is do you even need the DRM or is the 'copy hassle' sufficient? You only need one person willing and able to subvert the DRM to make and then distribute an unrestricted version. Individuals don't need to 'unDRM' content themselves it's out there if they want and know how to get it. I think that what DRM provides is the illusion of control. This illusion is good enough to allow Netflix and similar companies to gain access to other peoples content upon which they build a very convenient system for media consumption by anybody who can use a TV.

ramshorns 10y ago

So Firefox includes the ability to play DRM-encumbered content. Is it implemented using proprietary software? Do all Firefox builds include this? It seems similar to Encrypted Media Extensions, which I thought wasn't a web standard yet.

hsivonen 10y ago
Firefox for Windows, Mac and Linux (x86/x86_64) can play DRM content using optional proprietary third-party plug-ins. Firefox itself as distributed by Mozilla is Free Software. In the case of EME-exposed plug-ins, Firefox handles the plug-in download for you. In the case of NPAPI, the download is up to the user.
stonogo 10y ago
Mozilla bascially absconded from the implementation of any video-related web standard whatsoever. After years of wasting everyone's time they finally caved and shipped Cisco's h264 implementation. Google's Widevine (hilariously marketed as a 'video optimizer') DRM platform is also not-quite-built-in-but-just-a-click-away. This has the result of suppressing the development of free implementations and further clenches Intel's x86 dominance, but Mozilla has stated they do not care. All their hundreds of millions of dollars and their thousand-plus employees are busy with other, more important things.
cpeterso 10y ago
This article is about Firefox using the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) API, not any other DRM content.

valarauca1 10y ago

I tried this. It works _kind of_. I have 3 monitors, and Netflix stubbornly refused to play until I had unplugged 2. Had the same issue on my MacBook. Have a second display because you want to watch Netflix + do something else? NOPE! Now with the price increase I'm really wondering why I keep my subscription.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I suppose it's some DRM bullshit. I happily run Netflix on a 2-monitor Linux PC and have no problem fullscreening it on one while working on the other.
manarth 10y ago
I've used Netflix on a mac mini with 2 monitors, and a MBP with an external display, and haven't had any issues. Could it be related to the connection cable? I've been connecting to external monitors with HDMI and display-port, which both support HDCP. Is it possible that playback get disabled if it detects a non-HDCP-compliant connection?
cryptarch 10y ago
Dude, you need a family account to play on three separate displays! Do you want to bankrupt the movie industry? Because that's how you bankrupt the movie industry. /s
lorenzhs 10y ago
I can use Netflix just fine with Laptop + external monitor on Linux with Chrome, even if I connect the monitor via VGA (just tried it). I only get 720p content that way, though—probably because VGA doesn't exactly have HDCP certification ;)

gravitypickles 10y ago

A bit off topic, but since I saw some complaints about DRM, Mozilla does distribute an "EME" free version of the browser also. This disables the plugin download and removes the checkbox altogether. The only place I've ever found it was via the ftp (or http to the ftp site): Example for the latest version as of this post: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/50.1.0/ https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/50.1.0/ just look for the EME free folders. Also the 'learn more page': https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm edit: more about the subject - https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...

cpeterso 10y ago
The only difference between the "EME-free" and regular version of Firefox is the default value of the "media.eme.enabled" about:config pref. This pref is also disabled by default on Linux. When this pref is disabled, Firefox won't automatically download the Google Widevine CDM or expose the EME API to web content. If you already have Firefox installed, just unchecking the "Play DRM content" setting in about:preferences#content will have the same effect without requiring you to install a special build of Firefox.

teekert 10y ago

So... Netflix on the Raspberry Pi? Bought a Chromecast just a tad to early?

cryptarch 10y ago

I don't think this is the right direction to work in, though it solves an immediate practical problem. I'm exploring ways to share media with family and good friends (legal per fair use), I'm currently looking at easy-to-understand caching models, where you have a Spotify-like player functionality with a meta-library composed of your own library and those of your friends, and a way to manage which media to store/cache where. I also think the problem of P2P voting/curation/moderation is very interesting. I'm looking for ways to combine something like a web of trust with extra user-provided metadata, as a way to have a P2P library of content (which can be anything, forum posts, recipes, rich media) with P2P meta-library to store votes and signatures, where the moderation is tweakable by and transparent to all participants, because it's a function of the meta-library.

alex_duf 10y ago
You mean you want eDonkey?
- cryptarch 10y ago
  No, I want a platform for decentralized apps that is capable of moderation/voting. eDonkey still uses central servers.
  - MayeulC 10y ago
    This actually is a very interesting idea. It makes me think of popcorntime, for which I wish the movies industry had embraced the model. You can still perform some DRM "check" (check the user's credentials, and allow/deny access to the content) without embedding DRM in The content itself. I can't promise anything, but the platform you are talking about sounds quite interesting; would you be willing to share some more details (privately, maybe)?
    - cryptarch 10y ago
      Yes, PopcornTime gave me the starting point to the idea. I still don't get why they choose to use a centralized API instead of a dynamic (as in, mutable and identified by public key and not content) P2P JSON file, I should probably open an issue. I don't think I've sufficiently fleshed it out yet, but I'll let you know when I have something coherent.

this-dang-guy 10y ago

Not sure I get the point - Netflix with Chrome on Linux just plain works. I use it all the time. Stop trying to make Firefox happen. It's a rapidly dying browser. I see less than 10% of the hits on the sites I manage from FF.

this-dang-guy 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:Browser_usage_share,_2009%E2%80%932016,_StatCounter.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m... Don't believe me? Fine. Pretend your little echo chamber is the whole world. I have better things to do with my time.

ggregoire 10y ago

Firefox and Chrome are still limited to 720p. I use Safari only for Netflix... https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742