15 ms·
Chrome 57 Will Permanently Enable DRM
- comex 10y agoThis article is out of date. If you look at the actual bug report [1], a replacement option to disable Widevine has already been implemented. This isn't some evil plot, it's just fallout from Chrome removing support for third-party plugins and thus the plugin management UI (chrome://plugins). [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=686430 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=686430
- gear54rus 10y ago> This isn't some evil plot, it's just fallout from Chrome removing support for third-party plugins and thus the plugin management UI So instead it's just a fallout from an earlier plot that is no less evil than this one appears to be.
- Buge 10y agoIt's a debatable question what is evil. Governments were actively exploiting plugins, so removing them makes users more secure.
- Dylan16807 10y agoRemoving binary plugin support is not evil at all.
- chii 10y agobut attempting to add DRM to an open standard is!
- yrro 10y agoBlame the content producers who insist that distributors 'protect' their content with DRM. Distributors aren't going to leave that money on the floor.
- syshum 10y agoWhy not blame both, as both are to blame. W3C is more to blame that all of them, as they have violated their mission statement with EME and DRM
- yrro 10y agoI guess I just don't see the harm. If EME standardization did not take place at W3C, I think it would take place at another standards organization, or privately between content distributors and browser developers. Either way, it still happens and nothing is materially different.
- syshum 10y agoIf I go to a site that is "HTML5 Compatible" I should not have to worry if my "HTML5 Browser" has all the proper binary blobs and approvals to support the content. If something is standard complaint it should work for all platforms that support the standard not just the Billion dollar corporations that paid to get their technology included into the standard
- lima 10y ago"Lesser of two evils". I prefer a nicely sandboxed and secured EME plugin over the insecure and clunkly silverlight pipelight trickery that was necessary before. Blame the media industry for forcing it.
- throwaway2048 10y agoOr we can blame google for gleefully going along too.
- mrighele 10y agoGoogle _is_ part of the media industry.
- chippy 10y agoIt's part of the advertising industry who's clients include the media industry.
- mrighele 10y agoTrue, but I was thinking more about the part where they sell music streaming services (Google Play Music, YouTube Red). Maybe I am wrong since they are not producers, but I considered this as being part of the media industry.
- hlandau 10y agoI don't think so. If Google was only implementing DRM to tick boxes, they wouldn't be implementing "extracurriculars" like hardware-based DRM on ChromeOS devices. They wouldn't own the very DRM company whose product they're peddling, a company which advertises to the very industry which is supposedly forcing Google's hand. http://www.widevine.com/ http://www.widevine.com/ Take a look at this page and search for 'HW_SECURE_ALL': http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html Now, what exactly is the point in implementing a more secure DRM variant (which as far as I can tell uses remote attestation) if content remains available to more 'vulnerable' platforms? We even have a potential lockin motive by Google here, too. I can see it now: "Only available on ChromeOS."
- sametmax 10y agoCome on we can't have it both way : promote the standard based Web and complain about the death of 3rd party plugin !
- gear54rus 10y agoWhy can't we? Do I really need that popup saying that 'developer mode' plugins are ZOMG HARMING ME? Because I installed ad nauseam that they removed because of the political BS? Don't get me wrong, my beloved firefox is not better. It wants me to install dev edition to be able to install anything. We made a mistake somewhere along the way.
- yAnonymous 10y agoThe mistake was made by companies abusing external plugin support to install plugins that make the browser vulnerable, slow or unstable. The browser vendors then get to take all the "credit" for that. Their decision to remove support for external plugins is absolutely reasonable.
- trome 10y agoI get why both browsers require signed plugins unless you are using the developer branch, on Windows 7 a huge vector of attack was malicious files loading unsigned plugins in Chrome in particular (also saw it in Firefox, but rarer) that would create popups, inject ads onto sites that didn't have ads, steal passwords, etc. That being said, I wish there was a way I could use unsigned plugins easily, without reinstalling firefox.
- derefr 10y agoBoth of those things (unsigned plugins causing permanent warnings and/or only being enabled for a developer edition) happen because not doing them means leaking open the one last (huge) hole malware can infect computers through The modern browser 1. is its own OS, but 2. doesn't have any concept of a privilege-level separation. That means any random program running as user X is free to install an extension into user X's Chrome or Firefox profile without needing to ask permission. And then said extension can harvest your social-network profiles, replace ads with their own, etc.
- 0x0 10y agoIt seems they are moving the Flash and Widevine plugin enable options into the general settings, but they're not exposing any way to disable NaCl/NativeClient any more?
- lima 10y agoYou can always delete the NaCL plugin, but I'd like to know this, too.
- tinus_hn 10y agoForce enabling all plugins and adding a disable button as an afterthought is a short-sighted evil plot.
- lima 10y agoBut that's exactly how it was before. Making it opt-in would be a terrible user experience.
- tbrowbdidnso 10y agoCool, thanks Google.
- josteink 10y agoAs Google was one of the main enablers of DRM on the web[1], this is hardly surprising. Basically without Google colluding with NetFlix, we would still have a DRM-free web-standard. Remember that next time you start up Chrome. You helped Google do this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Digital_rights_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Digital_rights_managemen...
- oblio 10y agoIs having non-standard DRM-enablers really any better? There is a real need for DRM, people and companies are asking for it, it's not going away.
- chimeracoder 10y agoYes. It forces the costs of supporting DRM primarily onto those who want to use it, rather than primarily on the browser vendors. As it stands, it is now legally impossible to create a fully standard-compliant web browser without paying licensing fees. That's a huge problem.
- derefr 10y agoThat's a separate issue, though; you could (at least theoretically) have a fully patent-unencumbered DRM standard.
- IshKebab 10y agoIt's not about patents. It's about closed source blobs. Sure you can write an open source DRM module but good luck getting Netflix to support that.
- derefr 10y agoI was responding specifically to the point the GP post made about licensing fees. What I meant was that there's no reason that there couldn't be a form of DRM that wouldn't require "licensing" in order to use it. It would indeed still have to be a closed-source binary blob—because, like you said, Netflix wouldn't accept anything less—but it could be a freely-redistributable closed-source blob, that any browser would be legally in the clear to include without seeking out a licensing arrangement. Re: "it's not about patents"—while other IP laws (e.g. copyright) determine whether you have the right to just redistribute a copy of the DRM blob, patents determine whether you can reverse-engineer the original blob to make your own blob with the same ABI that embeds the same keying material, or whether that's also illegal. Patents, thus, are the ultimate difference between a blob you have to pay to license, and one you don't.
- shmerl 10y agoIt's a shame this garbage made it into HTML standard, and Google were complicit in it.
- kasparsklavins 10y agoBetter than using flash, which Spotify Web player used to do.
- chii 10y agonot really. flash is dying, and osx devices is probably going to stop supporting it soon enough, and the rest of the world is going to follow. if DRM isn't in the standard, it illegitimizes any DRM that you have to install, which improves content consumption for users, and hopefully force media producers to use DRM free formats, even when they don't want to (they cannot realistically ask users to install a blob without taking a hit in signup and conversion). however, if DRM is built-in to the browser, users no longer have a gate to cross, and so DRM media will become the norm.
- colde 10y agoMore likely what would happen is that DRM'ed content is only available on mobile devices and Windows. If you think that not having DRM in the browsers would cause anyone to abandon it, you are wrong.
- shmerl 10y agoDRM-free can be achieved. But for that we don't need betrayals like Google's and the like. They only delay things.
- Grue3 10y agoThe difference is, you can, and always were able to disable Flash. Now all that that shit is part of "HTML" and you can't throw away that kitchen sink anymore. Have fun with buggy DRM binary blobs and obscure HTML standards leaking your internal IPs.
- hartator 10y agoTime to cancel Netflix.
- Sylphine 10y agoI will have to read the article later but if this is true then I will have to say to Chrome those memorable words found in Terminator 2. Hasta la vista, baby.
- dorianm 10y agoMy favorite story about DRM is how even Netflix's CEO would rather not use DRM but basically less than 1% of the users care about DRM while it's a requirements when signing contracts with movies producers. This makes perfect sense, and at the end of the day those who produce there content have a right to choose the conditions of how it's distributed
- duncan_bayne 10y agoSure. But that doesn't mean the W3C had to compromise the Open Web by incorporating DRM interop into their standards.
- vetinari 10y ago> and at the end of the day those who produce there content have a right to choose the conditions of how it's distributed Sure, but also Netflix and other distributors have right to choose what they distribute and what they don't distribute. So a few movies would not be available, until the studios do the math and stop insist on DRM. Instead, they managed to outsource the support burden for their wish and it is financed by third parties, who don't care about DRM at all.
- rahkiin 10y agoNot 'a few' wouldn't be available but even less than there are now. Then even more people will complain about the small catalog of movies and series on Netflix and leave their service. I am not sure about the American catalog but the one in the netherlands is not so large.
- vetinari 10y agoNetflix has this problem almost everywhere. They are solving it by making their original content and there surely is not DRM enforcement by third parties. In the end, it is about who can persuade the other party about their own relative importance in the business.
- josteink 10y ago
- shaan7 10y agoSo all we need is a powerful enough GPU and record the screen while playing a "DRM-enabled" movie?
- gcp 10y agoThis doesn't actually work. Try it!
- tajen 10y agoHow? Do cameras detect DRM contents?
- kuschku 10y agoYou’re joking, but yes, that’s actually a thing. Watermarks with detection in cameras and scanners, be it the simple EURion constellation[1], ContentArmor[2] or the watermarking techniques developed by Denuvo, these things exist. Some directly prevent you from photographing the content or filming it, others tell the camera to add identifying information steganographically. Even others are only used for ContentID. All of them work even if the material is going through analog copying. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation [2] http://contentarmor.net/ http://contentarmor.net/
- zapu 10y agoAlso [1], which relies on watermarking audio of content, which then can be detected by hardware players and the playback can be stopped if it discovers that e.g. you play a BluRay rip from USB stick. It survives encoding with different codecs. I'm not sure if it has been cracked yet or not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia
- grw_ 10y agoAppears to be 'cracked' as far as is possible- i.e, can remove the watermark itself, but not possible to undo the degradation to the original signal that the watermarking introduces. http://cyberside.net.ee/ripping/cinex_wp_release1.pdf http://cyberside.net.ee/ripping/cinex_wp_release1.pdf
- dagenleg 10y agoWith Firefox constantly shooting itself in the foot and Google being it's usual evil self we are slowly but surely moving into the dystopian future of walled internet. Oh well.
- lima 10y agoIsn't Firefox progressing nicely?
- aruggirello 10y agoIs Chromium affected too?
- GoofballJones 10y agoThat's what I'd like to know also. And if so, what is stopping a group of people from forking Chromium and building one that can turn it off? Chromium is open source, yes? With everyone crying and complaining about Firefox on this thread, why not all get together and fork THAT browser too? There have been forks of software before...some MUCH bigger than a browser. Take MATE forking off from Gnome 2 when people didn't like Gnome 3 at the time. Look at LibreOffice. Why should Chromium or Firefox be any different?
- crypt1d 10y agoI dropped Chrome few weeks ago when this news initially appeared. I've been using Firefox and haven't looked back at Chrome since. I've been a Chrome user since its earliest releases. I remember switching away from Firefox at the time because Chrome seemed faster on my old PC, and I also loved the minimalistic design. Now I feel Firefox has an edge again, and I also get to supported a company whose values are apparently more aligned with mine. Go Mozilla!
- simooooo 10y agoChrome has the best dev tools. Until that is sorted we will be tied. I use Safari most other times. Never Firefox though
- josteink 10y agoI use Chrome for when I need the dev-tools and nothing else. I don't like to promote evil browsers.
- pas 10y agoThey are trying .. http://devtoolschallenger.com/ http://devtoolschallenger.com/ .. I don't know what else you'd want (because I'm not a frontend guy and I can see how slow the backend shit is from the server log just as well thankyou :) )
- schiffern 10y agoSo much for "but DRM plugins are the better solution, because you can decline to install them." eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7058004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7058004 This is exactly why 'slippery slope' arguments are not as fallacious as people make them out to be. Humans are not rationally acting robots. Spreading out an unacceptable change into a series of gradual and individually acceptable changes does work (even though logically it shouldn't), because it slowly shifts people's baseline expectations.
- vetinari 10y agoThis concept is being called either boiling frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog or Overton window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window (in political sciences)
- thehardsphere 10y ago> This is exactly why 'slippery slope' arguments are not as fallacious as people make them out to be. "Slippery slopes" are only fallacious when you don't actually describe a mechanism from reaching the top of the slope to the bottom. "If we let women vote, next thing you know there will be gays in the military." That's fallacious because there's no connection at all between women's sufferage and gays in the military. Many slippery slope arguments take that form. "If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always on," could be considered fallacious because it's not made explicit how one gets from DRM plugins to DRM always on, even if it may be implicitly obvious. "If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always on because that is the endgame Netflix et al wants and they are spreading out the implementation of their evil master plan to gain compliance" isn't fallacious as a slippery slope because the mechanism is made explicit.
- matt4077 10y agoIt doesn't work like that. "Slippery slope" is, by itself, a mechanism. It means exactly what you're describing in your last paragraph, except it does not require someone explicitly planning the progression. "Spreading out the implementation..." does not improve the argument because it's just restating the definition of "slippery slope". The statement that Netflix has some "evil master plan" is an assertion without proof and doesn't add anything to the argument, either.
- lossolo 10y agoIf you have great product you don't need DRM, you will make money of it either way. Look at CD Project RED (creators of Witcher game series), their CEO said "We can't force you to buy our game but we can convince you to do so" and they don't use DRM because they choose to. They made a lot of money because they just care about their product and their clients.
- vbezhenar 10y agoDoes DRM even work? I can hardly believe, that encryption keys are not leaked and determined hackers can't copy protected content.
- pornel 10y agoDRM works great, but DRM is not for protecting content from piracy. It's for getting leverage over playback device manufacturers. https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
- vbezhenar 10y agoThat's a very interesting point of view, thanks, it certainly makes sense. Though I don't really understand, why bother with all those encryptions, if you can just add some metadata to the video container. Something like "printing is forbidden" flag in PDF.
- pornel 10y agoUsually metadata like "printing is forbidden" or "ad is unskippable" is effectively optional, as someone could write a player that ignores it. However, adding any encryption covered by DMCA makes it the law, and allows you to use the police to enforce your file format's specification.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tehabe 10y agoWhat I don't like about Widevine/EME in Chrome: you don't when it is being used. It would be a big improvement if you knew and could ask the website why it is using EME on something. Of course it should also possible to know for what EME is being used.
- josteink 10y agoEME should be a permissions, just as much as asking for the users microphone and web-camera. Iirc when Firefox caved in on this whole CDM thing, they made it something the website needs to request access to before it can be activated. I see no technical reasons for why Chrome shouldn't be able to do the same. I guess Google has an active interest in promoting DRM, and as such making DRM cumbersome to use is counter to that goal.
- tehabe 10y agoThis is actually the case, but the setting in incomplete, you have a setting called "Allow sites to play protected content (recommended)" in the Settings (Chrome 57). Missing is "Ask" and a whitelist.
- rasz_pl 10y agoHow about a button to disable mandatory Extension updates?
- GoofballJones 10y agoJust a question on principles...as someone elsewhere here has stated that this article is out of date and that you can, in fact, disable Widevine in Chrome 57. But either way, let's say you couldn't disable it...and that it was also the case in Chromium. Couldn't someone fork Chromium and put out a new browser with that disabled? Chromium is all open source, yes? So what's stopping someone from doing that?