23 ms·

Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

537 points by nullspace 10y ago

cyborgx7 10y ago
Translation: Netflix successfully lobied DRM into what is supposed to be the OPEN web standard, to the point where even Firefox couldn't afford not to support it. Dark days for the free exchange of information enabled by the web.
- jasonmp85 10y ago
  Yes, the world was better when Flash and Silverlight were the media of choice for delivering video.
  - mmagin 10y ago
    Nevermind that the binary blobs come from pretty much the same place: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Media/EME#Platform_Support https://wiki.mozilla.org/Media/EME#Platform_Support (Ok, I guess on Linux it's a blob from a Google-owned company.)
    - hsivonen 10y ago
      The previous DRM plug-in (Silverlight) was made by Microsoft. The new one (Widevine CDM) is made by Google.
      - OhSoHumble 10y ago
        I was hopeful that the announcement from Mozilla applied to BSD. If Widevine is used, then this will be Linux only. Still good news, however.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    It was indeed, since people had started recognizing the problems with Flash and Silverlight, and they'd have been much easier to kill off. DRM should have stayed second-class, leaving the way open for competitors to offer a first-class web experience as long as they left DRM behind.
    - cmsimike 10y ago
      > leaving the way open for competitors to offer a first-class web experience as long as they left DRM behind. Competitors already exist in this area. Here is GoG's listening of DRM-free movies: https://www.gog.com/movies?sort=bestselling&page=1 https://www.gog.com/movies?sort=bestselling&page=1 It is very rare that I find something I want to watch here, where as the content I generally want to watch, sadly, exists behind a DRM-wall. Services/competitors are a dime a dozen, but the issue is driving users to your service, and I don't believe users will run to watch content they don't want to watch just because it is DRM free. I also don't feel like we will force content creators to go DRM free since, as we're seeing, everyone is releasing their own streaming service, which would include DRM.
    - mozumder 10y ago
      Sorry, but Hollywood has the upper hand here. Hollywood has no desire to enter an open platform. They're completely happy if none of their movies are online, ever. Really. They already have a massively profitable distribution system in the theaters. The problem is that people want to watch Hollywood movies on their computer, including people that use Linux. So what do you tell those people to do? Tell them run Windows? Have them go watch it in the theater? And they have copyright controls that can force offline sites that host copyrighted content in various countries. So DRM is the tech industry's way to kiss these people ass. It may be flawed or may not work, but it's still ass-kissing. They're the artists, they get to decide what they do with their art. The consumer has no right to an artists creation. Their only choice is to pay up or ignore it. And you'll find that this happens to other art mediums as well. There are many, many art galleries that won't sell certain works of art if they deem your ownership as insufficient. Literally - the customer is wrong.
      - yuhong 10y ago
        I wonder why Hollywood was taken over by lawyers in the first place. Yes, I am going back to before Sony vs Universal.
        ethbro 10y ago
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    That wasn't his central point I don't think, also Flash and Silverlight where largely beaten by the Open Web because they never got the adoption sufficient to rival it. So instead they lobbied for it to be built in, the day will come when view source won't work anymore because everything fed down will protected by DRM and we moved another step closer to turning the web into a gigantic walled garden for whoever the incumbents are at that point in time.
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      Flash's peak marketshare was over 99%. They had the adoption.
      - Razengan 10y ago
        Until Steve Jobs slew it, or so I'm told.
    - camus2 10y ago
      > That wasn't his central point I don't think, also Flash and Silverlight where largely beaten by the Open Web because they never got the adoption sufficient to rival it. this is a false statement, Flash was ubiquitous. Still today every chrome user on desktop has a flash player. Obviously, this isn't true for mobile, but before the mobile era flash was basically on every Windows and Mac computer with a browser.
      - noir_lord 10y ago
        Merely been installed isn't adoption, if 99% of my web time is using HTML/JS to render content and 1% of that time Flash then do the web browser and flash have the same adoption?. By that metric notepad would be the most adopted programmer text editor in the world..
    - frik 10y ago
      > the day will come when view source won't work Yes, with WebAssembly. (With ASM.js, the predecessor it was still JS, but hard to read as human.) that's why WebAssembly is bad for the open web. In near future we will see binary blob SaaS like full Office running in browser. So the 1990s vision of vendor lock-in come to a full circle.
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    It would be better if the platforms that wanted DRM just made their own damn desktop apps, just like they make their own iOS apps, Android apps, Roku apps, smart tv apps, etc. There's no reason for them to be embedded in a browser.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - mtgx 10y ago
      The irony is that Netflix does have a desktop application as well.
      - jasonkostempski 10y ago
        Not for Linux and I know first had that the Windows Store one is complete garbage because I really wanted it to work. The Hulu one is just as bad.
        flukus 10y ago
        I've used the windows one a fair bit and would take it over the browser one any day. The desktop one wins for resource usage alone.
        jasonkostempski 10y ago
        For me, it usually wouldn't start up (some oddball Windows Store error, probably because I don't sign into my machine with a Microsoft ID) and streaming quality was horrible, especially at the beginning, and there was no way to tell it to wait longer for buffering.
      - futurix 10y ago
        This is mostly a side effect of their development efforts for Xbox and Windows 10 Mobile.
    - hsivonen 10y ago
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Yver 10y ago
    How is that even an argument? That's a false dilemma. The choice isn't limited to binary blob Flash/Silverlight vs binary blob DRM plugin.
    - acdha 10y ago
      What other option was seriously on offer? I buy DRM-free music but the video options are extremely limited to a few committed proponents — I love them for that but it's like saying nobody should buy conventional agribusiness food because you can buy organic free-trade kombucha.
  - greenhouse_gas 10y ago
    The thing is that there is (for all intents and purposes) no difference between ECE and plugins. Actually, ECE is a plugin. The only difference is that it helps web-designers switch plugin providers. That's it. No more security. No more standardization. As a user, you still depend on the goodwill of the ECE provider throw you a bone. If you use a slightly niche OS (say, OpenBSD on ARM), you're out of luck. If Adobe decides that it's not worth their time to develop a plugin for PaleMoon, they won't and you're out of luck (or will MS let their ECE plugin run on Linux, or Google's run on FF?). You (as a user) won't be able to switch to another provider. It all depends on the provider.
    - djrogers 10y ago
      I completely understand and sympathize with your point, however this: "If you use a slightly niche OS (say, OpenBSD on ARM)" Is rather hilarious - calling OpenBSD on ARM a 'slightly niche' OS in the context of 'operating systems people use to watch video on the web' is rather ambitious, don't you think? OpenBSD on ARM would have to increase it's user base in this arena by a couple orders of magnitude to elevate itself to 'slightly niche'....
      - greenhouse_gas 10y ago
        I picked two relativity popular platforms, though niche together to focus on the danger. All the more so would something like the rust os have problems. The bigger issue will be when these providers will start holding OS's hostage (well, you want to view half the web? You've got to have a locked bootloader and only I have the key. You want to index our sites? Google has permission (the unlocking key) but not you).
      - merb 10y ago
        isn't the Nintendo Switch based on either OpenBSD or FreeBSD and uses ARM? woudn't that be a good reason to have a plugin for that? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_softwar...
        10y ago
  - nikcub 10y ago
    One of the only positives to come out of these new standards was that NPAPI could be deprecated. We've arguably replaced an insecure and general purpose open interface to proprietary blobs with more narrow and single purpose open interfaces to proprietary blobs.
  - blitmap 10y ago
    The problem is DRM has been used for more than digital rights management. We've seen it used to surveill the user and collect information - and restrict actions on the users' computer when it thinks you're doing something illicit (not allowing you to burn things to disc, restricting the ability to screenshot videos, uninstalling/deleting programs, adding rootkits, etc). Far outside the scope of providing authorized access to protected content. What's terrible is Netflix could have used it's considerable influence to tell _that_ _Industry_ that we won't walk this walk anymore. EME - as I understand it - allows them to create a closed-source program that runs in a sandbox to authorize and reproduce content we've paid to view. It should have very limited ability to do this - but breaking out of sandboxes is what some software engineers are employed to figure out. We're trusting those companies with the ability to run their programs on our computer so we can watch Paul Blart: Mall Cop. We hope it works as it's defined, but it's not a guarantee. It's not worth it and pirates don't rip from Netflix anyway. They usually work for the industry as some part of the distribution/theater network. This hurts the customer. Our computers are not our own.
    - threeseed 10y ago
      The idea that Netflix could tell the movie and TV industries what to do is laughable and woefully ignorant of how those industries work. Why do you think Netflix et al invests so much in original content ? Because they have zero leverage and are beholden to the whims of Hollywood.
    - daenney 10y ago
      > What's terrible is Netflix could have used it's considerable influence to tell _that_ _Industry_ that we won't walk this walk anymore. Why do you assume they didn't? And if they did and the industry said no, what should they have done? Walk away, lose access to all its content, see a large part of their subscriber base move to different services that do support DRM and therefor get the content and eventually have to start firing employees as their income drops? Just about any streaming service has this exact same problem. They don't love DRM nor want to support it, it's annoying and cumbersome. But it's how you get access to the content. And unless you can survive purely on your own content you don't really have the option to walk away over your ideals. If you want DRM out of the system, convince the content/rights holders that DRM isn't in their best interests, i.e they can make more money without it or at the very least won't lose money over not having it. If you're hoping that somehow a significant enough size of the population will boycott it for the industry to change, based on the ideals of the open web and open access, you'll be waiting a long time.
  - camus2 10y ago
    How about the DRM stays out of the free web entirely? You want DRM? develop your own desktop app.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- davexunit 10y ago
  Dark days, indeed. Sacrificing the open web so some can watch movies.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    To a huge chunk of users video IS the web. If Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube didn't work (assume YT adopts DRM) the browser would basically be DOA for a HUGE chunk of people.
    - cgearhart 10y ago
      So...the _entire_ web should be saddled with DRM because people who don't care about the web wouldn't use it otherwise? Is the web better now because all those people now have _another_ way to passively consume video content?
      - MBCook 10y ago
        That argument works both ways. _NO ONE_ should have the option to view copyrighted videos because you don't want it? Yes, I think this improves the web. You no longer need the unmaintained disaster that was silverlight or the resource vampire and exploit factory that was flash. Users can choose to view this content in a safeER way than before. The only good argument against this is the 'we don't need DRM ' argument, but that hinges on the ability to get content you want in a non-DRM format and it seems clear that isn't happening anytime soon thanks to Hollywood et. al and I don't blame them.
  - kefka 10y ago
    I wonder how long it will be for newsprint media companies to use this to "secure" their websites so that Adblockers cannot process the 'encrypted but you can't see' data?
  - rimliu 10y ago
    How does it sacrifice the open web again? Is there a law being passed that entire web should be DRMed?
- futurix 10y ago
  When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment, I'd rather have the latter. Yes, in ideal world there will be DRM-free streaming - but unfortunately that's unrealistic.
  - josteink 10y ago
    > When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment Why? That puts the cost of DRM on everyone except the ones who want to freeload on our open tech to take our freedom away. And that's ass backwards. You want non-free and closed? Cool deal. Go build it yourself.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Free as in freedom means companies are free to add things like DRM if the want and consumers are free to choose services that don't go down that path.
      - aurelianito 10y ago
        Mmmmmmm, only if I can edit the source of the DRM program and make my own modified version.
    - CJefferson 10y ago
      You want free and open? Go build that yourself. People do build Firefox and chrome without this, go download them and enjoy yourself.
      - hsivonen 10y ago
        If you don't want Widevine, you can simply uncheck the “Play DRM content” checkbox in Mozilla-distributed Firefox, and the CDM doesn’t get downloaded and gets deleted if it was already downloaded. No need for a different build. Be sure to uninstall Flash and Silverlight, too.
    - 10y ago
- snakeanus 10y ago
  >to the point where even Firefox couldn't afford not to support it Mozilla did not seem to care that much actually. And as long as torrents exist I do not think that there is any reason to support it.
  - riquito 10y ago
    It was either support EME or become the browser where you can't see any video. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
    - snakeanus 10y ago
      More like "It was either support EME or become the browser where you can't use any useless service like Netflix." As long as torrents exist Netflix is useless.
- criddell 10y ago
  I thought that the only change was that the DRM mechanism was turned into an open standard. How is this worse than before? As someone that occasionally uses Linux, I think it's great that Netflix works there now. Previously, the audience on Linux wasn't worth the development effort for Netflix. Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard is a bad thing?
  - josteink 10y ago
    > Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard Yes. The bit where this is an "open standard" to implement completely closed, non-standard plugins, which cannot be implemented by reading the spec. With this "open standard" any browser or OS not blessed by Hollywood can't have a full web experience. And I take great issues with that.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Another way to look at it is that Netflix isn't part of the web. I suppose that viewpoint admits that obstinance on the part of Firefox was not going to get Netflix to offer their service without DRM.
      - cgearhart 10y ago
        Only insofar as Netflix was opting not to put their content on the web. Netflix was _not_ prevented from being on the web pre-DRM -- it's just that responsibility for meeting their requirements for access to content rested with them rather than browser developers. edit: not really sure how I messed up the original comment, which was an incoherent mess.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Huh? If a browser developer doesn't bother to implement an EME interface and get access to DRM components for their users, all that happens is that some sites don't work. It doesn't force any burden on the developer. I understand the argument about this making it harder to develop new browsers and so on, but eschewing EME probably wasn't going to prevent that from happening, it would just happen in flash or other closed code.
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  This is so true that the title should be changed. I propose: Online video services get DRM added to browser in order to "protect content".
- scythe 10y ago
  It's true but it doesn't make sense IMO for the buck to stop at Netflix. If Netflix could have talked content providers into allowing them to use an open-source "DRM" that worked for ordinary users but which could probably be circumvented by someone with programming skills, this wouldn't happen. The problem is that legally Netflix could be on the hook for any copyright infringement that may have been facilitated by their service. Crucially, the definition of "facilitated" can include not taking enough precautions to prevent it, and apparently using an open-source script that imperfectly prevents copying is still enough to expose Netflix to liability. The laws must be ordered in a way that allows streaming video to be sold to users of open-source software. It's not like the current scheme is entirely resistant to pirates anyway. It's very much like the Drug War in that externalities affecting individuals who have done nothing wrong begin to exceed the damage caused by the "crime".
  - nikcub 10y ago
    This argument was more true in the early days of the web DRM debate, but the Netflix of today is largely publishing its own content rather than distributing the content of others, so it is setting the terms of how its content will be protected. I don't think it is a coincidence that Netflix's more aggressive anti-piracy actions and rollout of more DRM-enabled platform choices has come at a time that they're distributing more of their own content.
  - algesten 10y ago
    Even if I don't like DRM, I don't believe a closed source DRM is any more perfect than an open source one. There's a strong link to cryptography here, and in that area an open source encryption is no less perfect than a closed one. Whatever DRM was required to please the suffering media conglomerates, it could at least have been open source.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dkonofalski 10y ago
  I don't know if I'm just looking too far into your comment, but I don't see why you're blaming Netflix (or it seems you are) or how you got to them being the bad guys for this? They're not the ones that make the content. If it was up to Netflix, they would just release their shows DRM-free on Netflix for any platform. Unfortunately, that's not how things work and they have to bow to the demands of the content distributors (not creators, like some people have stated in other comments).
  - teej 10y ago
    I get your argument but a larger portion than ever of Netflix's catalog is first party content.
    - dkonofalski 10y ago
      That doesn't mean that the majority of their catalog is. Everything they do will be optimized for what they have the most of.
  - ndesaulniers 10y ago
    > If it was up to Netflix, they would just release their shows DRM-free on Netflix for any platform. That is SO UNTRUE. Netflix would never want their content to be distributed by anyone other than them, which is the point of DRM; absolute control over distribution, not copy protection. If Netflix was against DRM, then why release their first party content DRM ensnared?
    - dkonofalski 10y ago
      That's not necessarily true. It may just be a matter of efficiency. Because all the other content requires DRM, they may have a processing workflow or other technology that just DRMs any and all content in a single, unified manner. Changing that workflow to bypass DRM may actually make it more complicated. You also have to consider that their first party content is rather new so this could absolutely be something that they're working on doing but never implemented because it wasn't an option when they weren't producing their own content.
- throwanem 10y ago
  All frontiers close. The response suggested by history, if you prefer life on the frontier, is to find a new one.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  If it becomes a problem the internet will find a way to evolve around it.
- dasil003 10y ago
  Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free software everywhere. Technically that might be true, but a few true believers martyring themselves is not going to change the social and political forces that drive software over time. Here's the bottom line: browser makers have absolutely zero leverage over DRM. Firefox refusing to implement DRM would have been 1000 times more likely to lead to Firefox's irrelevance and death than it would lead to rightsholders caving on DRM requirements. Even if all browsers banded together and refused, all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers, and that would lead to a significant devaluation of the web in favor of proprietary apps. It is a techno-centric fantasy to think that browser makers have even a modicum of leverage here. The fact is content producers would restrict themselves to licensed devices in a heartbeat, and they would get away with it to, because at the end of the day, people want to watch what they want to watch. EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web since its scope is small and it maintains the overall schema of web standards. It shouldn't be considered worse than proprietary plugins with arbitrary scope.
  - franciscop 10y ago
    I don't agree with "people want to watch what they want to watch." IMO the 2005-2015 wave of pirated content was due to the exact opposite; users (people in the living room) not going the extra literal mile to buy/rent a DVD. With the coming of Spotify & Co the music pirate scene has pretty much died off and it's because the physical CDs are replaces by something orders of magnitude easier. Same thing is happening with video content now that most houses have the capability of streaming it. What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software.
    - bearcobra 10y ago
      > What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software. Maybe, but Roku, Fire Sticks, Apple TV & Chromecast all seem to indicate that people are willing to put in some effort to set up a platform for video consumption. That combined with pre-installed solutions like iTunes and Microsoft Movies & TV give users some pretty easy options to compete with their browser.
notyourwork 10y ago
Does anyone else find it extremely off putting that companies that are supposed tech leaders are pushing "web" features to a subset of browsers? I really have trouble accepting the fragmentation in the web world. This includes less extreme cases like mobile/desktop versions of browsers without user ability to toggle between the two. Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seriously?
- tbirrell 10y ago
  We cannot have both the uniformity that comes of a single universal browser and the benefits that come from a free marketplace. So long as anyone can make a browser, there will be differences. And the day we try to eliminate that will be a dark day indeed.
  - chii 10y ago
    they should have a minimum level of compatibility. that's the meaning of a standard. that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it. open standards means open competition. if in the future, only browsers who can implement the EME can survive, it will kill the small start up browser who other wise would have innovated and beat the incumbent.
    - vntok 10y ago
      > that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it This is not entirely true though: a US-bought DVD player won't accept to play DVDs bought in China, Europe, Australia, etc.
      - chii 10y ago
        but a chinese made DVD player can play a US dvd. The fact that a browser sucks doesn't prevent good browsers from being made. But with this EME, you now is forced to use the US made dvd player, for no good reason other than profit for the encumbent.
- 10y ago
davexunit 10y ago
This only works because of DRM infecting web standards. Thanks for hurting the web, Netflix.
- tzs 10y ago
  They did not put DRM into web standards. They put an open interface into web standards that can be used to interface to third party DRM, but could also be used for non-DRM purposes.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    That's just playing word games. Netflix lobbied for EME so they could serve DRM'd video, end of story.
    - artursapek 10y ago
      Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing.
      - davexunit 10y ago
        >Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uber wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't exploit drivers and dodge laws that apply to taxis. Airbnb wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't sidestep hotel laws. If your business depends on having unjust power over your customers then you ought to go out of business.
        pitaj 10y ago
        These are completely different realms. Legality of Uber and Airbnb is very different from Netflix losing all 3rd party content if they didn't provide DRM. Also, many people seem to have a real hard-on for the same legal system that outlaws marijuana and created the DMCA.
      - 10y ago
zeveb 10y ago
Remarkably, I get a 'Secure Connection Failed' from Firefox on Linux when attempting to view the blog entry.
- sp332 10y ago
  Are you using HTTPS Finder or a similar add-on? The blog isn't hosted with TLS and the link is to a plain HTTP URL, so I'm not sure why your browser tried to load a nonexistent HTTPS version of the page.
  - dest 10y ago
    same problem here. I get an auto-redirect to a failing https, even with extensions disabled.
- asdfgadsfgasfdg 10y ago
  I get the same. Maybe HSTS?
  - dest 10y ago
    very likely.
- Thaxll 10y ago
  Disable your add-on that force https it sucks.
SwellJoe 10y ago
I don't like DRM, but I like binging Netflix in a corner on my laptop while I work. I've been doing it for years using Chrome with a fake user-agent to fool Netflix into thinking I'm on Windows (apparently that hasn't been needed for some time?) So...I'm torn, I guess. I'm glad Linux/Firefox can Netflix, but I'd like it if web standards were open and not patent encumbered. I guess it's a political issue and not a technical one, and I doubt Netflix care all that much (I believe the content creators are the ones who insisted on DRM for Netflix to stream). Then again, now that Netflix is creating a lot of their own content, they might be evil on that front, too (as they're evil on net neutrality now that they are in a position of strength).
- pitaj 10y ago
  > I'm glad Linux/Firefox can Netflix, but I'd like it if web standards were open and not patent encumbered. The actual web standard is open. Netflix was one of the key players in making this an open extensible standard instead of it being an extension or plugin for browsers.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    It's still a binary blob, isn't it?
    - dblohm7 10y ago
      Correct. The Web API is standardized, but how the engine interfaces with the actual content decryption modules is not.
      - chii 10y ago
        that's just a play on words. it's not an open standard if a completely unaffiliated party cannot implement the full standard (which I assume is true due to the blob for decryption).
- wnevets 10y ago
  >(as they're evil on net neutrality now that they are in a position of strength). what is this in reference to?
mmastrac 10y ago
Does this use Firefox's super-sandboxed Adobe CDM module [0]? [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-rights-management-and-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r...
- mtgx 10y ago
  It may use Google's Widevine, since Firefox recently started supporting it.
  - cat199 10y ago
    IIRC I remember seeing something in a forum that it is widevine, and that it had already worked in FF since whichever release included it (1-3 releases ago) if the UA was spoofed, but this could be somone's failed test and a bad memory..
    - dblohm7 10y ago
      Correct.
futurix 10y ago
I hope this means the end of Silverlight on the desktop - as it is still required for Amazon Video and NOW TV (in the UK at least).
- hsivonen 10y ago
  Amazon Video works with EME+Widevine, too. What makes you say it still requires Silverlight?
  - futurix 10y ago
    Because last time I checked it on the desktop (2-3 months ago) - it did. I'm very happy it is no longer the case!
- Nexxxeh 10y ago
  I can't complain about Now TV's tech priorities. They've recently added subtitles to their ondemand platform (on the Smart TV Box at least). Amazon Prime Video runs in Chrome on Linux/Chrome OS or via Silverlight. Hopefully this news will likewise enable it in Firefox on Linux too.
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 10y ago
Netflix video quality sucks on browsers anyway – at least for movies. Half of them seem to be limited to something which could only be described as "less than DVD quality", some noticeably so. That's the reality for the paying customer – for a “pirate”, most of the movies in HD quality are a quick web search away, without needing to install any programs.
- pitaj 10y ago
  If you're looking for quality, you want to go with a Bluray, not a rip.
  - YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 10y ago
    I'm not a “videophile”, video quality comparable to a 10 GB rip is more than enough for my tastes, and for lesser content even less is fine. Netflix, however, at times doesn't come even close to that, with the video bitrate often hovering just above 1000 kbps in browsers.
- maldusiecle 10y ago
  Netflix uses a tiered system for HD video. The lowest price is no HD, the next is HD, and the highest is Ultra HD. You may also need to tweak your Netflix settings, since the default quality level is "Auto," rather than "High." It may be surprising, but many people don't much notice the difference.
  - YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 10y ago
    Indeed it does, and I'm not in the lowest tier. The quality of video is very fine indeed when watching with, say, a Netflix app on a Sony TV, but I prefer to watch stuff on my desktop in a comfy chair, and for that, Netflix leaves wanting with video bitrate not always even above 1000 kbps. (Right now, for the movie “Collateral”, the highest bitrate offered is 870 kbps when watching in a browser. I'm almost certain it is way above that on more restricted devices, as that has been the case with other titles in the past.)
egeozcan 10y ago
They really needed DRM to survive. It's great that they can run a sandbox in my computer so I can watch videos, something which wasn't possible with the open web standards. By the way, here's the list of titles which weren't pirated thanks to DRM: .
- davexunit 10y ago
  If they need DRM in "open" web standards then they deserve to go out of business.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    Who are you saying deserves to go out of business? Netflix? Because I can assure you Linux users that insist on Firefox support instead of just Chrome will not be the difference between them being in business or not. They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. I get that we don't like DRM, but I've seen speakers who work for Netflix get yelled at on stage at open-source tech conferences over it. Not helping. The same is true if you meant Mozilla deserves to go out of business. This attitude of "anyone who isn't 100% in line with my principles should be removed from society" is just getting taken too far. It's stupid.
    - ailideex 10y ago
      > They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. Is it really though ? I mean ... their content still get pirated. Everybody's content gets pirated, yet most of them are still in business.
      - TallGuyShort 10y ago
        My main point is that they're in business because they can get licensed to distribute the content because they'll accept DRM. Try being a DRM-free alternative to Netflix that I think is worth $8 a month. Good luck. It's not that DRM changes a ton with consumers, it's all about getting the producers onboard. For better or worse, most of the best content producers (at least the management) are insisting on DRM. Anecdotally, I do see a whole lot less piracy than I did 10 years ago. I think things like Spotify and Netflix / Hulu provide enough of what people want with the right business model and enough freedom that the peasants aren't willing to revolt. Which can be a good thing - fewer computers get AIDS from Kazaa. It's analagous to most governments. Some people want 100% anarchy. But almost no one's trying to overthrow the government because 60% freedom is good enough for most people and not worth war. But maybe I'm just less hip than I used to be.
josteink 10y ago
Not with DRM thoroughly disabled across the line, it won't. And I'm not happy to see web-sites and services "available" for a specific OS nor browser. That's like going back to the 90s. Not cool.
ganfortran 10y ago
No thx, I will watch it on my phone or TV.
imode 10y ago
on the upside, I can now watch Netflix on Linux using Firefox, and I can opt in or opt out of the DRM facilities... on the downside, as everybody else has pointed out, we now have DRM encroaching onto an open standard. I guess I'll take it as I go.
shmerl 10y ago
Let them release their own video (which they create) DRM-free. Otherwise their disgusting efforts of pushing EME into HTML standard are also backed by stinking hypocrisy, of claiming in not being interested in DRM themselves.
lholden 10y ago
I have been using Netflix on Firefox under Linux for a long while now. All that was required was changing my user agent... The only recent change here is that the user agents for Firefox on Linux are finally allowed.
michaelmior 10y ago
I've been watching Netflix in Firefox on Linux for some time now. I guess it wasn't officially supported until now, so good to see.
hathawsh 10y ago
Why do companies put so much effort into DRM when a commonly available $20 device strips it away in real time? I don't want to steal streams, I just want my HDMI devices to work together. This little gem strips HDCP so my old (but nice) receiver can talk to my newer projector: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004F9LVXC https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004F9LVXC
- Nexxxeh 10y ago
  A 4K HDR strip and capture rig is more expensive. But Netflix and Amazon Prime content still turns up pirated in 4K. But Netflix and Amazon can be seen to be doing "everything they can to prevent piracy!"
- MBCook 10y ago
  Because a ton of people are honest and want to pay for content, and don't want to try that hard to pirate it. Even a small hurdle is enough to keep them on the straight and narrow. I'm quite willing to pay for content, I'll even go out of my way to find a way to do it sometimes. The few times I've looked into piracy in the last few years it's such a thorny mess that I'm quite happy to try and find a legal way to view. If there isn't one? I probably just won't watch it. I don't want to dig into that giant hornets nest of a mess.
  - ailideex 10y ago
    IMO your missing the point - people wanting to pay for things legally does not somehow negate the existence of HDCP strippers and the pointlessness of DRM.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      You're right, it doesn't. I just don't think most people, even if they know that exists, will go that far.
apostacy 10y ago
This is the strategy Microsoft tried over a decade ago with ActiveX. And Firefox saved us. It was starting to be normalized, to have to install ActiveX controls to view certain content. Companies like CinemaNow[1] offered Netflix-like streaming movie services using Microsoft's ActiveX based Janus DRM over a decade ago. Thankfully, the community had more of a backbone back then. Firefox and Linux were not broken because they didn't support Microsoft's crummy software. I considered it a major feature, actually. Microsoft was trying to push the narrative that if you wanted to truly get a first class experience of the web, you had to be running Windows and Internet Explorer. Microsoft made it easy to just use the Trident engine, and get locked into their ecosystem. Now, the same thing is happening again, except that Mozilla is on board with it. It's only a matter of time until Firefox is just a wrapper for webkit, and websites will compel you to install EMEs that will force you to watch ads. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaNow
- mgbmtl 10y ago
  Interesting point about ActiveX, but I think that Flash killed (or stopped the proliferation) of ActiveX, at least for video. Flash "just worked". Don't get me wrong, I use Firefox and I don't use Netflix or Flash, but most people are quite content on Chrome. For Firefox to stand up to Netflix, it would need more than at 15% market share. Firefox is doing what it can to survive. If someone lacks a backbone, it's the W3C :(
- hsivonen 10y ago
  > Thankfully, the community had more of a backbone back then. Back then there wasn't Chrome to switch to. Users disliked IE much more back then than they dislike Chrome today.
- mintplant 10y ago
  > Now, the same thing is happening again, except that Mozilla is on board with it. Mozilla doesn't have as much leverage now that a large part of "the community" has abandoned Firefox for Chrome. If you care about these issues, stop and consider the effect of your choice in user agent. > It's only a matter of time until Firefox is just a wrapper for webkit It will be a very cold day in hell before this happens. Mozilla is only investing more in its browser engine tech with Quantum and Servo.
coding123 10y ago
Cool, thanks Netflix, but I'm using a mac now so you can close my ticket from 8 years ago.
- trunnell 10y ago
  You're welcome!
problems 10y ago
So I remember reading some early EME specs that seemed to indicate that EME encrypted content could be decoded and played by the browser's standard decoder and player - in the case of an open source browser like Firefox - hooking these decoding functions is quite trivial. Is this the means they've gone with or does this EME blob include their own decoder and player? EDIT: This little image here: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-encrypted-media-20160705/stack_overview.svg https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-encrypted-media-20160705/stack... in the bottom right indicates that "CDM implementations may return decrypted frames or render them directly". Would be very interesting to see a generic CDM hook which could dump all the in-and-out calls to a given CDM.
- pornel 10y ago
  This diagram and most of non-normative parts of the spec are a deliberate red herring. The purpose of these is to derail discussion about DRM restrictions by saying that any restrictions are optional. However, during discussions at W3C Netflix representatives confirmed that their implementation doesn't work like this. They are only interested in "strong" DRM model in which the player is not trusted and has no ability to see decrypted data, so it can't even use its regular HTML5 codec to decode it.
  - problems 10y ago
    On Android they feed it directly to the OS codecs except for 4K video so they can't really care that much.
  - thomastjeffery 10y ago
    Thanks for the clarification! Can I upvote you twice?
bluetwo 10y ago
All you complainers are going to ruin the reputation of linux users as extravagant spenders making it rain everywhere they go.
AsyncAwait 10y ago
If you can, consider adopting Firefox so that Mozilla has more sway in these sorts of things next time.
incompatible 10y ago
Does anyone have a technical summary of how this Widevine DRM module works? How it can possibly keep the unencrypted data away from the user if the user can modify the browser and other OS components in any way they like?
cr0sh 10y ago
This may be an extreme view, but have you ever wondered why DRM exists? It exists because highly intelligent people designed it, developed it, and encoded it as software, in exchange for money. Period. Ok - that's a simplification, but it isn't too far from the truth. These people (short of some kind of compartmentalized R&D model where nobody knew the complete picture - which I doubt happened in this case) each were intelligent enough to think to themselves, and even discuss among themselves, where this all could end up. Where it could lead, what the ultimate goal could happen. In short - had they given it some thought, they would've been able to see the arguments against and for DRM, and how it could potentially affect consumers, users, and everything else...what we are arguing about today, and have been for a long while now. So - if they could do this - why did they take the next step, then the next, and so on? Sure - they needed to eat and pay bills, but we're not talking about had they not implemented it, that they would be instantly unemployed in the industry. They could have each said "I will not do this", and foregone the money. Of course, the industry could have countered with larger and larger payouts; but if you were in the hot seat, and you had an idea where things would lead, and you didn't like that idea - what amount of money would've made you change your mind to sell out the future? At what point does the money outweigh your values? If you are someone in one of these positions, where you know or have an idea of what might come down the pipe in the future (or you know someone in such a position), if you honestly disagree with all of that, you need to make a choice, or speak to others, or whatever. You need to say to yourself, to your colleagues and/or friends in the business that "yes - I will compromise my values for this money" (or if not money, whatever compensation is being offered or procured). You need to be honest about that to yourself and others - no excuses. Or you must resist, and say "no amount of money will make me change my values; my name and reputation are worth much more than that". Here's a thought - would you shake the hand of the developer(s) of DVD/CSS, or would you look at them quizzically, and ask them scornfully "why?". Would you shake Jack Valenti's hand and tell him "Nice job!"? (yes I know he's dead) Ultimately - what I'm trying to get at - it isn't an "us vs. them" situation. It really is "us" and "us" only. We continue to support this, as we continue to rail against it. I'm not saying if we did anything differently things would have changed. Most humans on the planet honestly don't give a crap about others, about future others, about the political and social consequences of their actions, thoughts and deeds in the now. They barely care about themselves. But if -you- do care about this issue (and a myriad of others), you need to ask yourself whether you support it or not, and if not, what it would take to buy you off - and whether you could live with that.
bubblethink 10y ago
Marginally related: Are there any new developments worth following on the anonymous & decentralized content distribution front ? Bit torrent is decades old. TOR doesn't work for these cases. I don't know if zeronet is a good fit. Who is working on the next big bit torrent replacement ?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tscizzle 10y ago
Can someone explain to me (a developer, but one unfamiliar with this situation and issues) what Netflix did and why it's bad for the open web? People do not seem happy about this, but I don't really understand what's going on.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  Digital Rights Management (DRM) is proprietary (closed-source) copy protection. It is made to prevent unauthorized copying. In order to implement DRM, one must create a method for the user to decrypt a file without letting the user have any control over where that data goes. Netflix uses DRM to show the user a video file while making it difficult for the user to put that data anywhere outside of the browser's DRM plugin. What Netflix has done here is strongarmed Mozilla into including the proprietary WidevineCDM component into their implementation of the open HTML5 standard. This means that Netflix has more control over what Firefox does on your computer than you do, or even Mozilla (who creates Firefox) does.
LeanderK 10y ago
What's the problem with DRM from a technical perspective? Why is it hurting the Web? I can't make the link, is it impossible for mozilla to provide an open-source implementation of the DRM standard?
- iso-8859-1 10y ago
  Open-source DRM makes no sense, in that case anyone could just patch the DRM module to save to disk unencrypted while viewing.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  Digital Rights Management is a proprietary method to prevent unauthorized copying. DRM literally cannot be open-source. DRM literally cannot be defined as an open standard. DRM is, and inherently must be, literally closed-source proprietary software.
nkristoffersen 10y ago
Is there a better method for protecting content provided by Netflix? Just being realistic. DRM is a necessary evil in that video studios would never ever provide content in the clear. I am so happy to see flash go the way of the Dodo. But curious what the best alternative is for implementing DRM on the web?
- nxc18 10y ago
  Probably Silverlight, which they have already been using. The thing is, premium content is going to be DRMd whether Firefox users like it or not. The question is, will Firefox users be able to consume it once they kill off Silverlight? The only other viable alternative is a native app, and we all know how open and Linux-friendly those tend to be.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  > DRM is a necessary evil in that video studios would never ever provide content in the clear. That is an untested assertion with no supporting evidence. The only reason studios get to strongarm providers like Netflix into using DRM is that specific providers like Netflix are happy to accommodate. > what the best alternative is for implementing DRM on the web? AFAIK, DRM inherently must be closed source. In order to implement DRM for the open web, you must circumvent the open web, or (in this case) sway those who implement that open standard (web browsers) to include your binaries.
throw2016 10y ago
I think with open source and standards we lose control the moment things become too complex for a group of open source developers to develop. At this point you need funding, organized efforts or corporate backers who bring their own agendas. Or be on the sidelines for decades while the work is done incrementally like Linux. For web browsers we have long passed that point. The level of complexity and ongoing effort rules out independent projects which means we are stuck with large corporate efforts like Chrome, Edge, Safari or token open ones like Firefox that trade on openness but are happy to collude with other browser makers to act against user interests. With this kind of ecosystem its inevitable user interests or things like open web standards will be thrown under the bus when it has no benefits to the projects. Mozilla has enough resources to take a stand against this or collaborate with orgs like EFF and try to rally users. It has certainly done that before, but nothing happened here. If Netflix wants to deliver DRM let them make their own app, there is no need to get browsers involved in any way. Linux was never about convenience, it was and is about openness and users and developers have persevered for decades to get here. It would have been 'convenient' to stick to Windows at the outset but then there would be no Linux as we know it today.
- apostacy 10y ago
  I agree, but, I think that the reason that things got this bad in the first place was because we let them set the rules for what a web browser should be. Firefox was the first major browser that didn't include an email reader, a news reader, and all this other crap. I just wrote in a post a few minutes ago, about how broken Mozilla's design decisions are[1]. They are absolutely unwilling to step out from Google's shadow. Google now gets to decide what it means to be a web browser. And I remember when Microsoft was in that position. I honestly think it would be possible to unseat the one party system we have with web browsers. I wish I had the time to invest in it. If I could though, I think a great place to start would be to just abandon a lot of the crap that we don't need. Microsoft was bloating the standard with all sorts of crap, like css rules for transparency (done poorly), or changing the color of the scrollbars (which everyone abused on myspace). Firefox said no. I think the web is way too heavy. And I'm already used to seeing websites with lots of javascript stripped out. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13953226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13953226
Nexxxeh 10y ago
Perhaps I'm missing the obvious here, but is this going to work On Firefox on Linux on ARM? Specifically Rasbian? Also no mention of Nrtflix's biggest dick move of late re:DRM. 4K playback on the PC only on Edge? Ugh. But the real kicker is "only with Kaby Lake Intel chips".
shirro 10y ago
Hate DRM. But love what Netflix has done to disrupt delivery of video in a country that has suffered with high prices, bundling and delayed releases. I am going with the pragmatic view on this one.
ac29 10y ago
Still waiting on an update that allows for 1080P streaming on Linux. There's been a hard limit of 720P on all content and something like half of 3rd party content is limited to 480P. Everything available in HD streams at 1080P in Windows 10 or using a device like a Roku. Whatever DRM they are using doesn't seem to be enough for them to be confident in allowing 1080P streaming on Linux, even for their own content. A brief check in Firefox shows the limitation is there as well.
mathgenius 10y ago
Does this change the situation for using chromium to watch netflix ?
Buge 10y ago
Do they still only support max 720p on Chrome and Firefox? I find that pretty irritating.
jrcii 10y ago
RMS was right.
teekert 10y ago
Does this mean Netflix on a Raspberry Pi using Firefox?
thomastjeffery 10y ago
And I am still stuck in 720p using Linux.

537 points by nullspace 10y ago

Translation: Netflix successfully lobied DRM into what is supposed to be the OPEN web standard, to the point where even Firefox couldn't afford not to support it. Dark days for the free exchange of information enabled by the web.

jasonmp85 10y ago
Yes, the world was better when Flash and Silverlight were the media of choice for delivering video.
- mmagin 10y ago
  Nevermind that the binary blobs come from pretty much the same place: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Media/EME#Platform_Support https://wiki.mozilla.org/Media/EME#Platform_Support (Ok, I guess on Linux it's a blob from a Google-owned company.)
  - hsivonen 10y ago
    The previous DRM plug-in (Silverlight) was made by Microsoft. The new one (Widevine CDM) is made by Google.
    - OhSoHumble 10y ago
      I was hopeful that the announcement from Mozilla applied to BSD. If Widevine is used, then this will be Linux only. Still good news, however.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  It was indeed, since people had started recognizing the problems with Flash and Silverlight, and they'd have been much easier to kill off. DRM should have stayed second-class, leaving the way open for competitors to offer a first-class web experience as long as they left DRM behind.
  - cmsimike 10y ago
    > leaving the way open for competitors to offer a first-class web experience as long as they left DRM behind. Competitors already exist in this area. Here is GoG's listening of DRM-free movies: https://www.gog.com/movies?sort=bestselling&page=1 https://www.gog.com/movies?sort=bestselling&page=1 It is very rare that I find something I want to watch here, where as the content I generally want to watch, sadly, exists behind a DRM-wall. Services/competitors are a dime a dozen, but the issue is driving users to your service, and I don't believe users will run to watch content they don't want to watch just because it is DRM free. I also don't feel like we will force content creators to go DRM free since, as we're seeing, everyone is releasing their own streaming service, which would include DRM.
  - mozumder 10y ago
    Sorry, but Hollywood has the upper hand here. Hollywood has no desire to enter an open platform. They're completely happy if none of their movies are online, ever. Really. They already have a massively profitable distribution system in the theaters. The problem is that people want to watch Hollywood movies on their computer, including people that use Linux. So what do you tell those people to do? Tell them run Windows? Have them go watch it in the theater? And they have copyright controls that can force offline sites that host copyrighted content in various countries. So DRM is the tech industry's way to kiss these people ass. It may be flawed or may not work, but it's still ass-kissing. They're the artists, they get to decide what they do with their art. The consumer has no right to an artists creation. Their only choice is to pay up or ignore it. And you'll find that this happens to other art mediums as well. There are many, many art galleries that won't sell certain works of art if they deem your ownership as insufficient. Literally - the customer is wrong.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      I wonder why Hollywood was taken over by lawyers in the first place. Yes, I am going back to before Sony vs Universal.
      - ethbro 10y ago
- noir_lord 10y ago
  That wasn't his central point I don't think, also Flash and Silverlight where largely beaten by the Open Web because they never got the adoption sufficient to rival it. So instead they lobbied for it to be built in, the day will come when view source won't work anymore because everything fed down will protected by DRM and we moved another step closer to turning the web into a gigantic walled garden for whoever the incumbents are at that point in time.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    Flash's peak marketshare was over 99%. They had the adoption.
    - Razengan 10y ago
      Until Steve Jobs slew it, or so I'm told.
  - camus2 10y ago
    > That wasn't his central point I don't think, also Flash and Silverlight where largely beaten by the Open Web because they never got the adoption sufficient to rival it. this is a false statement, Flash was ubiquitous. Still today every chrome user on desktop has a flash player. Obviously, this isn't true for mobile, but before the mobile era flash was basically on every Windows and Mac computer with a browser.
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      Merely been installed isn't adoption, if 99% of my web time is using HTML/JS to render content and 1% of that time Flash then do the web browser and flash have the same adoption?. By that metric notepad would be the most adopted programmer text editor in the world..
  - frik 10y ago
    > the day will come when view source won't work Yes, with WebAssembly. (With ASM.js, the predecessor it was still JS, but hard to read as human.) that's why WebAssembly is bad for the open web. In near future we will see binary blob SaaS like full Office running in browser. So the 1990s vision of vendor lock-in come to a full circle.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  It would be better if the platforms that wanted DRM just made their own damn desktop apps, just like they make their own iOS apps, Android apps, Roku apps, smart tv apps, etc. There's no reason for them to be embedded in a browser.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mtgx 10y ago
    The irony is that Netflix does have a desktop application as well.
    - jasonkostempski 10y ago
      Not for Linux and I know first had that the Windows Store one is complete garbage because I really wanted it to work. The Hulu one is just as bad.
      - flukus 10y ago
        I've used the windows one a fair bit and would take it over the browser one any day. The desktop one wins for resource usage alone.
        jasonkostempski 10y ago
        For me, it usually wouldn't start up (some oddball Windows Store error, probably because I don't sign into my machine with a Microsoft ID) and streaming quality was horrible, especially at the beginning, and there was no way to tell it to wait longer for buffering.
    - futurix 10y ago
      This is mostly a side effect of their development efforts for Xbox and Windows 10 Mobile.
  - hsivonen 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Yver 10y ago
  How is that even an argument? That's a false dilemma. The choice isn't limited to binary blob Flash/Silverlight vs binary blob DRM plugin.
  - acdha 10y ago
    What other option was seriously on offer? I buy DRM-free music but the video options are extremely limited to a few committed proponents — I love them for that but it's like saying nobody should buy conventional agribusiness food because you can buy organic free-trade kombucha.
- greenhouse_gas 10y ago
  The thing is that there is (for all intents and purposes) no difference between ECE and plugins. Actually, ECE is a plugin. The only difference is that it helps web-designers switch plugin providers. That's it. No more security. No more standardization. As a user, you still depend on the goodwill of the ECE provider throw you a bone. If you use a slightly niche OS (say, OpenBSD on ARM), you're out of luck. If Adobe decides that it's not worth their time to develop a plugin for PaleMoon, they won't and you're out of luck (or will MS let their ECE plugin run on Linux, or Google's run on FF?). You (as a user) won't be able to switch to another provider. It all depends on the provider.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    I completely understand and sympathize with your point, however this: "If you use a slightly niche OS (say, OpenBSD on ARM)" Is rather hilarious - calling OpenBSD on ARM a 'slightly niche' OS in the context of 'operating systems people use to watch video on the web' is rather ambitious, don't you think? OpenBSD on ARM would have to increase it's user base in this arena by a couple orders of magnitude to elevate itself to 'slightly niche'....
    - greenhouse_gas 10y ago
      I picked two relativity popular platforms, though niche together to focus on the danger. All the more so would something like the rust os have problems. The bigger issue will be when these providers will start holding OS's hostage (well, you want to view half the web? You've got to have a locked bootloader and only I have the key. You want to index our sites? Google has permission (the unlocking key) but not you).
    - merb 10y ago
      isn't the Nintendo Switch based on either OpenBSD or FreeBSD and uses ARM? woudn't that be a good reason to have a plugin for that? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_softwar...
      - 10y ago
- nikcub 10y ago
  One of the only positives to come out of these new standards was that NPAPI could be deprecated. We've arguably replaced an insecure and general purpose open interface to proprietary blobs with more narrow and single purpose open interfaces to proprietary blobs.
- blitmap 10y ago
  The problem is DRM has been used for more than digital rights management. We've seen it used to surveill the user and collect information - and restrict actions on the users' computer when it thinks you're doing something illicit (not allowing you to burn things to disc, restricting the ability to screenshot videos, uninstalling/deleting programs, adding rootkits, etc). Far outside the scope of providing authorized access to protected content. What's terrible is Netflix could have used it's considerable influence to tell _that_ _Industry_ that we won't walk this walk anymore. EME - as I understand it - allows them to create a closed-source program that runs in a sandbox to authorize and reproduce content we've paid to view. It should have very limited ability to do this - but breaking out of sandboxes is what some software engineers are employed to figure out. We're trusting those companies with the ability to run their programs on our computer so we can watch Paul Blart: Mall Cop. We hope it works as it's defined, but it's not a guarantee. It's not worth it and pirates don't rip from Netflix anyway. They usually work for the industry as some part of the distribution/theater network. This hurts the customer. Our computers are not our own.
  - threeseed 10y ago
    The idea that Netflix could tell the movie and TV industries what to do is laughable and woefully ignorant of how those industries work. Why do you think Netflix et al invests so much in original content ? Because they have zero leverage and are beholden to the whims of Hollywood.
  - daenney 10y ago
    > What's terrible is Netflix could have used it's considerable influence to tell _that_ _Industry_ that we won't walk this walk anymore. Why do you assume they didn't? And if they did and the industry said no, what should they have done? Walk away, lose access to all its content, see a large part of their subscriber base move to different services that do support DRM and therefor get the content and eventually have to start firing employees as their income drops? Just about any streaming service has this exact same problem. They don't love DRM nor want to support it, it's annoying and cumbersome. But it's how you get access to the content. And unless you can survive purely on your own content you don't really have the option to walk away over your ideals. If you want DRM out of the system, convince the content/rights holders that DRM isn't in their best interests, i.e they can make more money without it or at the very least won't lose money over not having it. If you're hoping that somehow a significant enough size of the population will boycott it for the industry to change, based on the ideals of the open web and open access, you'll be waiting a long time.
- camus2 10y ago
  How about the DRM stays out of the free web entirely? You want DRM? develop your own desktop app.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davexunit 10y ago
Dark days, indeed. Sacrificing the open web so some can watch movies.
- MBCook 10y ago
  To a huge chunk of users video IS the web. If Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube didn't work (assume YT adopts DRM) the browser would basically be DOA for a HUGE chunk of people.
  - cgearhart 10y ago
    So...the _entire_ web should be saddled with DRM because people who don't care about the web wouldn't use it otherwise? Is the web better now because all those people now have _another_ way to passively consume video content?
    - MBCook 10y ago
      That argument works both ways. _NO ONE_ should have the option to view copyrighted videos because you don't want it? Yes, I think this improves the web. You no longer need the unmaintained disaster that was silverlight or the resource vampire and exploit factory that was flash. Users can choose to view this content in a safeER way than before. The only good argument against this is the 'we don't need DRM ' argument, but that hinges on the ability to get content you want in a non-DRM format and it seems clear that isn't happening anytime soon thanks to Hollywood et. al and I don't blame them.
- kefka 10y ago
  I wonder how long it will be for newsprint media companies to use this to "secure" their websites so that Adblockers cannot process the 'encrypted but you can't see' data?
- rimliu 10y ago
  How does it sacrifice the open web again? Is there a law being passed that entire web should be DRMed?
futurix 10y ago
When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment, I'd rather have the latter. Yes, in ideal world there will be DRM-free streaming - but unfortunately that's unrealistic.
- josteink 10y ago
  > When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment Why? That puts the cost of DRM on everyone except the ones who want to freeload on our open tech to take our freedom away. And that's ass backwards. You want non-free and closed? Cool deal. Go build it yourself.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Free as in freedom means companies are free to add things like DRM if the want and consumers are free to choose services that don't go down that path.
    - aurelianito 10y ago
      Mmmmmmm, only if I can edit the source of the DRM program and make my own modified version.
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    You want free and open? Go build that yourself. People do build Firefox and chrome without this, go download them and enjoy yourself.
    - hsivonen 10y ago
      If you don't want Widevine, you can simply uncheck the “Play DRM content” checkbox in Mozilla-distributed Firefox, and the CDM doesn’t get downloaded and gets deleted if it was already downloaded. No need for a different build. Be sure to uninstall Flash and Silverlight, too.
  - 10y ago
snakeanus 10y ago
>to the point where even Firefox couldn't afford not to support it Mozilla did not seem to care that much actually. And as long as torrents exist I do not think that there is any reason to support it.
- riquito 10y ago
  It was either support EME or become the browser where you can't see any video. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
  - snakeanus 10y ago
    More like "It was either support EME or become the browser where you can't use any useless service like Netflix." As long as torrents exist Netflix is useless.
criddell 10y ago
I thought that the only change was that the DRM mechanism was turned into an open standard. How is this worse than before? As someone that occasionally uses Linux, I think it's great that Netflix works there now. Previously, the audience on Linux wasn't worth the development effort for Netflix. Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard is a bad thing?
- josteink 10y ago
  > Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard Yes. The bit where this is an "open standard" to implement completely closed, non-standard plugins, which cannot be implemented by reading the spec. With this "open standard" any browser or OS not blessed by Hollywood can't have a full web experience. And I take great issues with that.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Another way to look at it is that Netflix isn't part of the web. I suppose that viewpoint admits that obstinance on the part of Firefox was not going to get Netflix to offer their service without DRM.
    - cgearhart 10y ago
      Only insofar as Netflix was opting not to put their content on the web. Netflix was _not_ prevented from being on the web pre-DRM -- it's just that responsibility for meeting their requirements for access to content rested with them rather than browser developers. edit: not really sure how I messed up the original comment, which was an incoherent mess.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Huh? If a browser developer doesn't bother to implement an EME interface and get access to DRM components for their users, all that happens is that some sites don't work. It doesn't force any burden on the developer. I understand the argument about this making it harder to develop new browsers and so on, but eschewing EME probably wasn't going to prevent that from happening, it would just happen in flash or other closed code.
appleflaxen 10y ago
This is so true that the title should be changed. I propose: Online video services get DRM added to browser in order to "protect content".
scythe 10y ago
It's true but it doesn't make sense IMO for the buck to stop at Netflix. If Netflix could have talked content providers into allowing them to use an open-source "DRM" that worked for ordinary users but which could probably be circumvented by someone with programming skills, this wouldn't happen. The problem is that legally Netflix could be on the hook for any copyright infringement that may have been facilitated by their service. Crucially, the definition of "facilitated" can include not taking enough precautions to prevent it, and apparently using an open-source script that imperfectly prevents copying is still enough to expose Netflix to liability. The laws must be ordered in a way that allows streaming video to be sold to users of open-source software. It's not like the current scheme is entirely resistant to pirates anyway. It's very much like the Drug War in that externalities affecting individuals who have done nothing wrong begin to exceed the damage caused by the "crime".
- nikcub 10y ago
  This argument was more true in the early days of the web DRM debate, but the Netflix of today is largely publishing its own content rather than distributing the content of others, so it is setting the terms of how its content will be protected. I don't think it is a coincidence that Netflix's more aggressive anti-piracy actions and rollout of more DRM-enabled platform choices has come at a time that they're distributing more of their own content.
- algesten 10y ago
  Even if I don't like DRM, I don't believe a closed source DRM is any more perfect than an open source one. There's a strong link to cryptography here, and in that area an open source encryption is no less perfect than a closed one. Whatever DRM was required to please the suffering media conglomerates, it could at least have been open source.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dkonofalski 10y ago
I don't know if I'm just looking too far into your comment, but I don't see why you're blaming Netflix (or it seems you are) or how you got to them being the bad guys for this? They're not the ones that make the content. If it was up to Netflix, they would just release their shows DRM-free on Netflix for any platform. Unfortunately, that's not how things work and they have to bow to the demands of the content distributors (not creators, like some people have stated in other comments).
- teej 10y ago
  I get your argument but a larger portion than ever of Netflix's catalog is first party content.
  - dkonofalski 10y ago
    That doesn't mean that the majority of their catalog is. Everything they do will be optimized for what they have the most of.
- ndesaulniers 10y ago
  > If it was up to Netflix, they would just release their shows DRM-free on Netflix for any platform. That is SO UNTRUE. Netflix would never want their content to be distributed by anyone other than them, which is the point of DRM; absolute control over distribution, not copy protection. If Netflix was against DRM, then why release their first party content DRM ensnared?
  - dkonofalski 10y ago
    That's not necessarily true. It may just be a matter of efficiency. Because all the other content requires DRM, they may have a processing workflow or other technology that just DRMs any and all content in a single, unified manner. Changing that workflow to bypass DRM may actually make it more complicated. You also have to consider that their first party content is rather new so this could absolutely be something that they're working on doing but never implemented because it wasn't an option when they weren't producing their own content.
throwanem 10y ago
All frontiers close. The response suggested by history, if you prefer life on the frontier, is to find a new one.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
If it becomes a problem the internet will find a way to evolve around it.
dasil003 10y ago
Sorry, but as someone who spent nearly a decade founding and building a premium content VOD service, and 6 of those years fighting fiercely against DRM and making great content available without DRM, I have both the knowledge and moral authority to say that you're living in a fantasy world. You might as well say that anyone who is not living an RMS-sanctioned ascetic technology lifestyle is hurting the cause of free software everywhere. Technically that might be true, but a few true believers martyring themselves is not going to change the social and political forces that drive software over time. Here's the bottom line: browser makers have absolutely zero leverage over DRM. Firefox refusing to implement DRM would have been 1000 times more likely to lead to Firefox's irrelevance and death than it would lead to rightsholders caving on DRM requirements. Even if all browsers banded together and refused, all that would mean is that premium content would not be available in browsers, and that would lead to a significant devaluation of the web in favor of proprietary apps. It is a techno-centric fantasy to think that browser makers have even a modicum of leverage here. The fact is content producers would restrict themselves to licensed devices in a heartbeat, and they would get away with it to, because at the end of the day, people want to watch what they want to watch. EME is a ideological compromise, sure, but it's a net benefit to the open web since its scope is small and it maintains the overall schema of web standards. It shouldn't be considered worse than proprietary plugins with arbitrary scope.
- franciscop 10y ago
  I don't agree with "people want to watch what they want to watch." IMO the 2005-2015 wave of pirated content was due to the exact opposite; users (people in the living room) not going the extra literal mile to buy/rent a DVD. With the coming of Spotify & Co the music pirate scene has pretty much died off and it's because the physical CDs are replaces by something orders of magnitude easier. Same thing is happening with video content now that most houses have the capability of streaming it. What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software.
  - bearcobra 10y ago
    > What people want to do after work is to sit in the sofa and press "play". They don't want to start installing software. Maybe, but Roku, Fire Sticks, Apple TV & Chromecast all seem to indicate that people are willing to put in some effort to set up a platform for video consumption. That combined with pre-installed solutions like iTunes and Microsoft Movies & TV give users some pretty easy options to compete with their browser.

notyourwork 10y ago

Does anyone else find it extremely off putting that companies that are supposed tech leaders are pushing "web" features to a subset of browsers? I really have trouble accepting the fragmentation in the web world. This includes less extreme cases like mobile/desktop versions of browsers without user ability to toggle between the two. Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seriously?

tbirrell 10y ago
We cannot have both the uniformity that comes of a single universal browser and the benefits that come from a free marketplace. So long as anyone can make a browser, there will be differences. And the day we try to eliminate that will be a dark day indeed.
- chii 10y ago
  they should have a minimum level of compatibility. that's the meaning of a standard. that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it. open standards means open competition. if in the future, only browsers who can implement the EME can survive, it will kill the small start up browser who other wise would have innovated and beat the incumbent.
  - vntok 10y ago
    > that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it This is not entirely true though: a US-bought DVD player won't accept to play DVDs bought in China, Europe, Australia, etc.
    - chii 10y ago
      but a chinese made DVD player can play a US dvd. The fact that a browser sucks doesn't prevent good browsers from being made. But with this EME, you now is forced to use the US made dvd player, for no good reason other than profit for the encumbent.
10y ago

davexunit 10y ago

This only works because of DRM infecting web standards. Thanks for hurting the web, Netflix.

tzs 10y ago
They did not put DRM into web standards. They put an open interface into web standards that can be used to interface to third party DRM, but could also be used for non-DRM purposes.
- davexunit 10y ago
  That's just playing word games. Netflix lobbied for EME so they could serve DRM'd video, end of story.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Why is everyone so upset? Having the option to use DRM in native web APIs is not a bad thing.
    - davexunit 10y ago
      >Netflix wouldn't be a viable business if not for DRM. Uber wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't exploit drivers and dodge laws that apply to taxis. Airbnb wouldn't be a viable business model if it didn't sidestep hotel laws. If your business depends on having unjust power over your customers then you ought to go out of business.
      - pitaj 10y ago
        These are completely different realms. Legality of Uber and Airbnb is very different from Netflix losing all 3rd party content if they didn't provide DRM. Also, many people seem to have a real hard-on for the same legal system that outlaws marijuana and created the DMCA.
    - 10y ago

zeveb 10y ago

Remarkably, I get a 'Secure Connection Failed' from Firefox on Linux when attempting to view the blog entry.

sp332 10y ago
Are you using HTTPS Finder or a similar add-on? The blog isn't hosted with TLS and the link is to a plain HTTP URL, so I'm not sure why your browser tried to load a nonexistent HTTPS version of the page.
- dest 10y ago
  same problem here. I get an auto-redirect to a failing https, even with extensions disabled.
asdfgadsfgasfdg 10y ago
I get the same. Maybe HSTS?
- dest 10y ago
  very likely.
Thaxll 10y ago
Disable your add-on that force https it sucks.

SwellJoe 10y ago

I don't like DRM, but I like binging Netflix in a corner on my laptop while I work. I've been doing it for years using Chrome with a fake user-agent to fool Netflix into thinking I'm on Windows (apparently that hasn't been needed for some time?) So...I'm torn, I guess. I'm glad Linux/Firefox can Netflix, but I'd like it if web standards were open and not patent encumbered. I guess it's a political issue and not a technical one, and I doubt Netflix care all that much (I believe the content creators are the ones who insisted on DRM for Netflix to stream). Then again, now that Netflix is creating a lot of their own content, they might be evil on that front, too (as they're evil on net neutrality now that they are in a position of strength).

pitaj 10y ago
> I'm glad Linux/Firefox can Netflix, but I'd like it if web standards were open and not patent encumbered. The actual web standard is open. Netflix was one of the key players in making this an open extensible standard instead of it being an extension or plugin for browsers.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  It's still a binary blob, isn't it?
  - dblohm7 10y ago
    Correct. The Web API is standardized, but how the engine interfaces with the actual content decryption modules is not.
    - chii 10y ago
      that's just a play on words. it's not an open standard if a completely unaffiliated party cannot implement the full standard (which I assume is true due to the blob for decryption).
wnevets 10y ago
>(as they're evil on net neutrality now that they are in a position of strength). what is this in reference to?

mmastrac 10y ago

Does this use Firefox's super-sandboxed Adobe CDM module [0]? [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-rights-management-and-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r...

mtgx 10y ago
It may use Google's Widevine, since Firefox recently started supporting it.
- cat199 10y ago
  IIRC I remember seeing something in a forum that it is widevine, and that it had already worked in FF since whichever release included it (1-3 releases ago) if the UA was spoofed, but this could be somone's failed test and a bad memory..
  - dblohm7 10y ago
    Correct.

futurix 10y ago

I hope this means the end of Silverlight on the desktop - as it is still required for Amazon Video and NOW TV (in the UK at least).

hsivonen 10y ago
Amazon Video works with EME+Widevine, too. What makes you say it still requires Silverlight?
- futurix 10y ago
  Because last time I checked it on the desktop (2-3 months ago) - it did. I'm very happy it is no longer the case!
Nexxxeh 10y ago
I can't complain about Now TV's tech priorities. They've recently added subtitles to their ondemand platform (on the Smart TV Box at least). Amazon Prime Video runs in Chrome on Linux/Chrome OS or via Silverlight. Hopefully this news will likewise enable it in Firefox on Linux too.

YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 10y ago

Netflix video quality sucks on browsers anyway – at least for movies. Half of them seem to be limited to something which could only be described as "less than DVD quality", some noticeably so. That's the reality for the paying customer – for a “pirate”, most of the movies in HD quality are a quick web search away, without needing to install any programs.

pitaj 10y ago
If you're looking for quality, you want to go with a Bluray, not a rip.
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 10y ago
  I'm not a “videophile”, video quality comparable to a 10 GB rip is more than enough for my tastes, and for lesser content even less is fine. Netflix, however, at times doesn't come even close to that, with the video bitrate often hovering just above 1000 kbps in browsers.
maldusiecle 10y ago
Netflix uses a tiered system for HD video. The lowest price is no HD, the next is HD, and the highest is Ultra HD. You may also need to tweak your Netflix settings, since the default quality level is "Auto," rather than "High." It may be surprising, but many people don't much notice the difference.
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 10y ago
  Indeed it does, and I'm not in the lowest tier. The quality of video is very fine indeed when watching with, say, a Netflix app on a Sony TV, but I prefer to watch stuff on my desktop in a comfy chair, and for that, Netflix leaves wanting with video bitrate not always even above 1000 kbps. (Right now, for the movie “Collateral”, the highest bitrate offered is 870 kbps when watching in a browser. I'm almost certain it is way above that on more restricted devices, as that has been the case with other titles in the past.)

egeozcan 10y ago

They really needed DRM to survive. It's great that they can run a sandbox in my computer so I can watch videos, something which wasn't possible with the open web standards. By the way, here's the list of titles which weren't pirated thanks to DRM: .

davexunit 10y ago
If they need DRM in "open" web standards then they deserve to go out of business.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  Who are you saying deserves to go out of business? Netflix? Because I can assure you Linux users that insist on Firefox support instead of just Chrome will not be the difference between them being in business or not. They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. I get that we don't like DRM, but I've seen speakers who work for Netflix get yelled at on stage at open-source tech conferences over it. Not helping. The same is true if you meant Mozilla deserves to go out of business. This attitude of "anyone who isn't 100% in line with my principles should be removed from society" is just getting taken too far. It's stupid.
  - ailideex 10y ago
    > They themselves tend to be pretty understanding of the whole anti-DRM thing and contribute to FOSS technology more than most companies, but they cooperate with DRM content because that actually is the difference between them being in business and not. Is it really though ? I mean ... their content still get pirated. Everybody's content gets pirated, yet most of them are still in business.
    - TallGuyShort 10y ago
      My main point is that they're in business because they can get licensed to distribute the content because they'll accept DRM. Try being a DRM-free alternative to Netflix that I think is worth $8 a month. Good luck. It's not that DRM changes a ton with consumers, it's all about getting the producers onboard. For better or worse, most of the best content producers (at least the management) are insisting on DRM. Anecdotally, I do see a whole lot less piracy than I did 10 years ago. I think things like Spotify and Netflix / Hulu provide enough of what people want with the right business model and enough freedom that the peasants aren't willing to revolt. Which can be a good thing - fewer computers get AIDS from Kazaa. It's analagous to most governments. Some people want 100% anarchy. But almost no one's trying to overthrow the government because 60% freedom is good enough for most people and not worth war. But maybe I'm just less hip than I used to be.

josteink 10y ago

Not with DRM thoroughly disabled across the line, it won't. And I'm not happy to see web-sites and services "available" for a specific OS nor browser. That's like going back to the 90s. Not cool.

ganfortran 10y ago

No thx, I will watch it on my phone or TV.

imode 10y ago

on the upside, I can now watch Netflix on Linux using Firefox, and I can opt in or opt out of the DRM facilities... on the downside, as everybody else has pointed out, we now have DRM encroaching onto an open standard. I guess I'll take it as I go.

shmerl 10y ago

Let them release their own video (which they create) DRM-free. Otherwise their disgusting efforts of pushing EME into HTML standard are also backed by stinking hypocrisy, of claiming in not being interested in DRM themselves.

lholden 10y ago

I have been using Netflix on Firefox under Linux for a long while now. All that was required was changing my user agent... The only recent change here is that the user agents for Firefox on Linux are finally allowed.

michaelmior 10y ago

I've been watching Netflix in Firefox on Linux for some time now. I guess it wasn't officially supported until now, so good to see.

hathawsh 10y ago

Why do companies put so much effort into DRM when a commonly available $20 device strips it away in real time? I don't want to steal streams, I just want my HDMI devices to work together. This little gem strips HDCP so my old (but nice) receiver can talk to my newer projector: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004F9LVXC https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004F9LVXC

Nexxxeh 10y ago
A 4K HDR strip and capture rig is more expensive. But Netflix and Amazon Prime content still turns up pirated in 4K. But Netflix and Amazon can be seen to be doing "everything they can to prevent piracy!"
MBCook 10y ago
Because a ton of people are honest and want to pay for content, and don't want to try that hard to pirate it. Even a small hurdle is enough to keep them on the straight and narrow. I'm quite willing to pay for content, I'll even go out of my way to find a way to do it sometimes. The few times I've looked into piracy in the last few years it's such a thorny mess that I'm quite happy to try and find a legal way to view. If there isn't one? I probably just won't watch it. I don't want to dig into that giant hornets nest of a mess.
- ailideex 10y ago
  IMO your missing the point - people wanting to pay for things legally does not somehow negate the existence of HDCP strippers and the pointlessness of DRM.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    You're right, it doesn't. I just don't think most people, even if they know that exists, will go that far.

apostacy 10y ago

This is the strategy Microsoft tried over a decade ago with ActiveX. And Firefox saved us. It was starting to be normalized, to have to install ActiveX controls to view certain content. Companies like CinemaNow[1] offered Netflix-like streaming movie services using Microsoft's ActiveX based Janus DRM over a decade ago. Thankfully, the community had more of a backbone back then. Firefox and Linux were not broken because they didn't support Microsoft's crummy software. I considered it a major feature, actually. Microsoft was trying to push the narrative that if you wanted to truly get a first class experience of the web, you had to be running Windows and Internet Explorer. Microsoft made it easy to just use the Trident engine, and get locked into their ecosystem. Now, the same thing is happening again, except that Mozilla is on board with it. It's only a matter of time until Firefox is just a wrapper for webkit, and websites will compel you to install EMEs that will force you to watch ads. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaNow

mgbmtl 10y ago
Interesting point about ActiveX, but I think that Flash killed (or stopped the proliferation) of ActiveX, at least for video. Flash "just worked". Don't get me wrong, I use Firefox and I don't use Netflix or Flash, but most people are quite content on Chrome. For Firefox to stand up to Netflix, it would need more than at 15% market share. Firefox is doing what it can to survive. If someone lacks a backbone, it's the W3C :(
hsivonen 10y ago
> Thankfully, the community had more of a backbone back then. Back then there wasn't Chrome to switch to. Users disliked IE much more back then than they dislike Chrome today.
mintplant 10y ago
> Now, the same thing is happening again, except that Mozilla is on board with it. Mozilla doesn't have as much leverage now that a large part of "the community" has abandoned Firefox for Chrome. If you care about these issues, stop and consider the effect of your choice in user agent. > It's only a matter of time until Firefox is just a wrapper for webkit It will be a very cold day in hell before this happens. Mozilla is only investing more in its browser engine tech with Quantum and Servo.

coding123 10y ago

Cool, thanks Netflix, but I'm using a mac now so you can close my ticket from 8 years ago.

trunnell 10y ago
You're welcome!

problems 10y ago

So I remember reading some early EME specs that seemed to indicate that EME encrypted content could be decoded and played by the browser's standard decoder and player - in the case of an open source browser like Firefox - hooking these decoding functions is quite trivial. Is this the means they've gone with or does this EME blob include their own decoder and player? EDIT: This little image here: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-encrypted-media-20160705/stack_overview.svg https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-encrypted-media-20160705/stack... in the bottom right indicates that "CDM implementations may return decrypted frames or render them directly". Would be very interesting to see a generic CDM hook which could dump all the in-and-out calls to a given CDM.

pornel 10y ago
This diagram and most of non-normative parts of the spec are a deliberate red herring. The purpose of these is to derail discussion about DRM restrictions by saying that any restrictions are optional. However, during discussions at W3C Netflix representatives confirmed that their implementation doesn't work like this. They are only interested in "strong" DRM model in which the player is not trusted and has no ability to see decrypted data, so it can't even use its regular HTML5 codec to decode it.
- problems 10y ago
  On Android they feed it directly to the OS codecs except for 4K video so they can't really care that much.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  Thanks for the clarification! Can I upvote you twice?

bluetwo 10y ago

All you complainers are going to ruin the reputation of linux users as extravagant spenders making it rain everywhere they go.

AsyncAwait 10y ago

If you can, consider adopting Firefox so that Mozilla has more sway in these sorts of things next time.

incompatible 10y ago

Does anyone have a technical summary of how this Widevine DRM module works? How it can possibly keep the unencrypted data away from the user if the user can modify the browser and other OS components in any way they like?

cr0sh 10y ago

This may be an extreme view, but have you ever wondered why DRM exists? It exists because highly intelligent people designed it, developed it, and encoded it as software, in exchange for money. Period. Ok - that's a simplification, but it isn't too far from the truth. These people (short of some kind of compartmentalized R&D model where nobody knew the complete picture - which I doubt happened in this case) each were intelligent enough to think to themselves, and even discuss among themselves, where this all could end up. Where it could lead, what the ultimate goal could happen. In short - had they given it some thought, they would've been able to see the arguments against and for DRM, and how it could potentially affect consumers, users, and everything else...what we are arguing about today, and have been for a long while now. So - if they could do this - why did they take the next step, then the next, and so on? Sure - they needed to eat and pay bills, but we're not talking about had they not implemented it, that they would be instantly unemployed in the industry. They could have each said "I will not do this", and foregone the money. Of course, the industry could have countered with larger and larger payouts; but if you were in the hot seat, and you had an idea where things would lead, and you didn't like that idea - what amount of money would've made you change your mind to sell out the future? At what point does the money outweigh your values? If you are someone in one of these positions, where you know or have an idea of what might come down the pipe in the future (or you know someone in such a position), if you honestly disagree with all of that, you need to make a choice, or speak to others, or whatever. You need to say to yourself, to your colleagues and/or friends in the business that "yes - I will compromise my values for this money" (or if not money, whatever compensation is being offered or procured). You need to be honest about that to yourself and others - no excuses. Or you must resist, and say "no amount of money will make me change my values; my name and reputation are worth much more than that". Here's a thought - would you shake the hand of the developer(s) of DVD/CSS, or would you look at them quizzically, and ask them scornfully "why?". Would you shake Jack Valenti's hand and tell him "Nice job!"? (yes I know he's dead) Ultimately - what I'm trying to get at - it isn't an "us vs. them" situation. It really is "us" and "us" only. We continue to support this, as we continue to rail against it. I'm not saying if we did anything differently things would have changed. Most humans on the planet honestly don't give a crap about others, about future others, about the political and social consequences of their actions, thoughts and deeds in the now. They barely care about themselves. But if -you- do care about this issue (and a myriad of others), you need to ask yourself whether you support it or not, and if not, what it would take to buy you off - and whether you could live with that.

bubblethink 10y ago

Marginally related: Are there any new developments worth following on the anonymous & decentralized content distribution front ? Bit torrent is decades old. TOR doesn't work for these cases. I don't know if zeronet is a good fit. Who is working on the next big bit torrent replacement ?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tscizzle 10y ago

Can someone explain to me (a developer, but one unfamiliar with this situation and issues) what Netflix did and why it's bad for the open web? People do not seem happy about this, but I don't really understand what's going on.

thomastjeffery 10y ago
Digital Rights Management (DRM) is proprietary (closed-source) copy protection. It is made to prevent unauthorized copying. In order to implement DRM, one must create a method for the user to decrypt a file without letting the user have any control over where that data goes. Netflix uses DRM to show the user a video file while making it difficult for the user to put that data anywhere outside of the browser's DRM plugin. What Netflix has done here is strongarmed Mozilla into including the proprietary WidevineCDM component into their implementation of the open HTML5 standard. This means that Netflix has more control over what Firefox does on your computer than you do, or even Mozilla (who creates Firefox) does.

LeanderK 10y ago

What's the problem with DRM from a technical perspective? Why is it hurting the Web? I can't make the link, is it impossible for mozilla to provide an open-source implementation of the DRM standard?

iso-8859-1 10y ago
Open-source DRM makes no sense, in that case anyone could just patch the DRM module to save to disk unencrypted while viewing.
thomastjeffery 10y ago
Digital Rights Management is a proprietary method to prevent unauthorized copying. DRM literally cannot be open-source. DRM literally cannot be defined as an open standard. DRM is, and inherently must be, literally closed-source proprietary software.

nkristoffersen 10y ago

Is there a better method for protecting content provided by Netflix? Just being realistic. DRM is a necessary evil in that video studios would never ever provide content in the clear. I am so happy to see flash go the way of the Dodo. But curious what the best alternative is for implementing DRM on the web?

nxc18 10y ago
Probably Silverlight, which they have already been using. The thing is, premium content is going to be DRMd whether Firefox users like it or not. The question is, will Firefox users be able to consume it once they kill off Silverlight? The only other viable alternative is a native app, and we all know how open and Linux-friendly those tend to be.
thomastjeffery 10y ago
> DRM is a necessary evil in that video studios would never ever provide content in the clear. That is an untested assertion with no supporting evidence. The only reason studios get to strongarm providers like Netflix into using DRM is that specific providers like Netflix are happy to accommodate. > what the best alternative is for implementing DRM on the web? AFAIK, DRM inherently must be closed source. In order to implement DRM for the open web, you must circumvent the open web, or (in this case) sway those who implement that open standard (web browsers) to include your binaries.

throw2016 10y ago

I think with open source and standards we lose control the moment things become too complex for a group of open source developers to develop. At this point you need funding, organized efforts or corporate backers who bring their own agendas. Or be on the sidelines for decades while the work is done incrementally like Linux. For web browsers we have long passed that point. The level of complexity and ongoing effort rules out independent projects which means we are stuck with large corporate efforts like Chrome, Edge, Safari or token open ones like Firefox that trade on openness but are happy to collude with other browser makers to act against user interests. With this kind of ecosystem its inevitable user interests or things like open web standards will be thrown under the bus when it has no benefits to the projects. Mozilla has enough resources to take a stand against this or collaborate with orgs like EFF and try to rally users. It has certainly done that before, but nothing happened here. If Netflix wants to deliver DRM let them make their own app, there is no need to get browsers involved in any way. Linux was never about convenience, it was and is about openness and users and developers have persevered for decades to get here. It would have been 'convenient' to stick to Windows at the outset but then there would be no Linux as we know it today.

apostacy 10y ago
I agree, but, I think that the reason that things got this bad in the first place was because we let them set the rules for what a web browser should be. Firefox was the first major browser that didn't include an email reader, a news reader, and all this other crap. I just wrote in a post a few minutes ago, about how broken Mozilla's design decisions are[1]. They are absolutely unwilling to step out from Google's shadow. Google now gets to decide what it means to be a web browser. And I remember when Microsoft was in that position. I honestly think it would be possible to unseat the one party system we have with web browsers. I wish I had the time to invest in it. If I could though, I think a great place to start would be to just abandon a lot of the crap that we don't need. Microsoft was bloating the standard with all sorts of crap, like css rules for transparency (done poorly), or changing the color of the scrollbars (which everyone abused on myspace). Firefox said no. I think the web is way too heavy. And I'm already used to seeing websites with lots of javascript stripped out. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13953226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13953226

Nexxxeh 10y ago

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious here, but is this going to work On Firefox on Linux on ARM? Specifically Rasbian? Also no mention of Nrtflix's biggest dick move of late re:DRM. 4K playback on the PC only on Edge? Ugh. But the real kicker is "only with Kaby Lake Intel chips".

shirro 10y ago

Hate DRM. But love what Netflix has done to disrupt delivery of video in a country that has suffered with high prices, bundling and delayed releases. I am going with the pragmatic view on this one.

ac29 10y ago

Still waiting on an update that allows for 1080P streaming on Linux. There's been a hard limit of 720P on all content and something like half of 3rd party content is limited to 480P. Everything available in HD streams at 1080P in Windows 10 or using a device like a Roku. Whatever DRM they are using doesn't seem to be enough for them to be confident in allowing 1080P streaming on Linux, even for their own content. A brief check in Firefox shows the limitation is there as well.

mathgenius 10y ago

Does this change the situation for using chromium to watch netflix ?

Buge 10y ago

Do they still only support max 720p on Chrome and Firefox? I find that pretty irritating.

jrcii 10y ago

RMS was right.

teekert 10y ago

Does this mean Netflix on a Raspberry Pi using Firefox?

thomastjeffery 10y ago

And I am still stuck in 720p using Linux.