32 ms·

I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

• NeekGerd 8y ago
  Had the same issue with an Electron app of mine, published on the AppStore with 10k users or so. It's been more than a year that I'm in contact with Google/Widevine, waiting for my license. This is a nightmare. It's such an obvious gatekeeping mechanism.
  • sroussey 8y ago
    What license?
    • gpvos 8y ago
      Widevine.
  • smaddock 8y ago
    Sorry to hear that. Hopefully something comes out of this which can improve the process for all of us. :(
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• kodablah 8y ago
  > For the last 2 years I’ve been working on a web browser that now cannot be completed because Google, the creators of the open source browser Chrome, won’t allow DRM in an open source project. It can too be completed, you're just not gonna have DRM'd content. I have a browser that has the same problem, and I just leave pages that can't do video playback (which doesn't include YouTube because they use WebM). There's still value in a non-DRM'd browser for most of the web, and hey, if enough of us use one maybe sites will start being more liberal in the licensing of their video (but let's be honest, probably not).
  • _bxg1 8y ago
    You're right in general, but the OP's browser seems fairly useless without it
    • johndavidback 8y ago
      Yes - reading the post it appears OP's specific value proposition is keeping DRM'd videos in sync. This reminds me of watching Dawson's Creek with my girlfriend in 8th grade - we'd call eachother on the phone and watch the show at the same time. Anyway this would be the browser version of that, from what I understand.
      • akhilcacharya 8y ago
        The hack some people have is to just stream the browser. I do that sometimes using Parsec and it works reasonably with GPU hardware encoding.
        • imtringued 8y ago
          Why bother with parsec when rabb.it exists?
          • akhilcacharya 8y ago
            I used Rabbit quite a bit but latency has gotten really bad lately. The hardware acceleration and my solid upload pipe makes parsec significantly better to use.
  • thefounder 8y ago
    Youtube has DRM and has nothing to do with WebM. It's just that not all the content is DRM-ed.
    • jchw 8y ago
      Wait really? With what videos does YouTube depend on Widevine DRM?
• sureaboutthis 8y ago
  This is the only reason you can't watch Netflix on FreeBSD using chromium or Firefox, too.
  • veryworried 8y ago
    How do you hack around it?
    • Evidlo 8y ago
      By getting media from "alternative" DRM free sources.
      • berbec 8y ago
        I've acquired media from "the usual places" for which I own the physical disc because it's easier and faster than handbraking it myself.
    • TremendousJudge 8y ago
      a VM maybe?
    • crest 8y ago
      Your only options are to videos from a DRM free source or remove the DRM. The later is prohibited in most jurisdictions. Just hope your vision and hearing stay unimpaired because DRM locks out all accessibility software.
  • quotemstr 8y ago
    Doesn't FreeBSD provide Linux kernel ABI compatibility?
    • penagwin 8y ago
      The linux community took a little bit but was able to get the DRM stuff working through wine (I think it was firefox+silvervine or something)and I think they now have a native solution. I doubt there's any real reason you couldn't get it working, it's just the FreeBSD community is a lot smaller and you'll have to convince somebody to work on it unless you have the know-how to yourself.
• wolco 8y ago
  So google won't let you use there DRM. Firefox doesn't support this. Don't allow DRM sources hulu/netflix otherwise make a deal with each company. Your problem is with the video providers not a third party who has a solution you want to use.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    > Firefox doesn't support this. Firefox does support either exactly this or something compatible.
  • kllrnohj 8y ago
    > Firefox doesn't support this. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm "Firefox for desktop supports the Google Widevine CDM for playing DRM-controlled content. Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
• qntty 8y ago
  Sorry, for those of us not privy to how Widevine works, what's the problem exactly? What do you need Google's approval for and why?
  • ohithereyou 8y ago
    Widevine is a DRM scheme. You need a license and information from Google to decode it without breaking the DRM.
    • nyuszika7h 8y ago
      The Widevine CDM is publicly available but you are not allowed to redistribute it. Firefox seems to have no problem downloading it at runtime. In worst case the user could manually download it.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • thefounder 8y ago
    Yes, you need Google's approval because now all major browsers have a black-box/binary blob which downloads other funky binary stuff so that it can decrypt video content. As you might figure out Google/Wildevine org gives the blackbox only to approved developers/devices/applications. Bonus DRM: If your license is not "the most certified" your browser/player will play only shitty/low quality versions of the video. There are other goodies of course like not being able to play the content offline.
    • mcv 8y ago
      So how do open source browsers like Chromium and Firefox do this? Surely if they have access to the blackbox, then anyone does? And if they don't, it means you can't watch Netflix on some major browsers.
      • int_19h 8y ago
        You have to install the (closed-source) widevine plugin for Chromium.
• _bxg1 8y ago
  DRM often results in a whitelist of media clients, killing standards in favor of a centralized authority. HDCP does the same for video feeds (HDMI, etc.). DRM-protected boxes can only output to DRM-protected displays, giving a central authority the ability to effectively deny new client devices from being made: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Conte...
  • Townley 8y ago
    Mind helping me understand this a bit better? The link mentions that to produce a HDCP-compatible device (eg one that has an HDMI port) it needs to be licensed, pay an annual fee, and make promises to frustrate DRM-mitigation efforts. If I wanted to make my own monitor with a VGA input (or, more practically, pipe the signals coming from VGA into a program that does something with the feed) I would just have to find a suitable adapter and receive the serial data. Does this mean that doing so with HDMI (either the real-world DIY monitor, or the in-software feed-ingestion program) would be: A) Difficult/time-consuming to write due to a lack of open drivers B) Run afoul of IP laws pertaining to the HDMI standard and get me sued C) Prevented by the cryptographic handshake that happens between an approved display and the output drivers D) All of the above?
    • dancek 8y ago
      Outputting an image via HDMI using an FPGA is relatively straightforward, almost as easy as VGA. I don't know about HDCP but expect it to be next to impossible. Inputting any pulse-based high-frequency signal is more difficult, be it VGA or Ethernet or HDMI.
    • Natanael_L 8y ago
      A little bit of A and all of B/C/D. Not all of HDMI is encrypted, but for the part that is the protocol is known, but you also need the keys which are meant to be stored in secure hardware and difficult to extract. Also, old keys are frequently phased out, with new media requiring newer keys for playback.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• mmastrac 8y ago
  The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.
  • gsnedders 8y ago
    No, if the Director had overridden the majority of the membership, the browser vendors would've shipped something anyway, and the YouTubes and Netflixes of the world would be using it anyway.
    • fixermark 8y ago
      Essentially. The money gated behind a closed DRM solution is so large that the w3c ran the risk of becoming an irrelevant standards body for this space if they didn't comply with what their members wanted to do. It's sub-optimal, but I don't think an optimal solution actually existed. A standards board divorced from reality is no better than no standard at all.
    • Touche 8y ago
      > No, if the Director had overridden the majority of the membership, the browser vendors would've shipped something anyway That's fine. It's better that the burden for maintaining non-standard plugins be put on the sites and browsers that choose to do that, rather than be placed on everyone else.
      • geofft 8y ago
        How would that have improved the current situation? The videos that Metastream wants to play would still have been DRM'd and would still be playable in the mainstream browsers. What would the benefit have been? What burden is being placed on people now that wouldn't be placed on people in that scenario?
        • 8y ago
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• todipa 8y ago
  Send this to the @EU_Commission - they might look into it.
• gcb0 8y ago
  let's address the elephant in the room. Google got the authority from everyone here who accepted chrome and IE DRM by default, to the point that even Firefox was forced to give in, so you all could be sedated by Netflix and other DRMed content.
  • fixermark 8y ago
    Yep. We optimized having Netflix over having another browser out there with a new feature-set. For basically all the users, this works great; demand for a new browser is low, for streaming media pretty high.
  • sergiotapia 8y ago
    Truth hurts. Is it too late to open up the web? I've already switched to Firefox.
    • kllrnohj 8y ago
      Firefox uses Google's Widevine for DRM content: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm "Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
      • Egraveline 8y ago
        So did Firefox have to ask permission from google? Or do they just do it without asking? Sorry I don’t know much about this.
        • toyg 8y ago
          I suspect the issue is that Firefox uses Widevine in a straightforward manner (play the content to one browser), whereas OP’s scenario needs some sort of additional insight in what the plugin is doing.
          • 8y ago
• ohithereyou 8y ago
  This is why I break DRM when I can, treating its presence as advisory at best. From a balancing test standpoint, if you want a technological solution to people copying your work then I think you should not be allowed to claim copyright protection of your work. Pick a legal or technical solution to unauthorized copying, not both.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • gerash 8y ago
    What kind of argument is that? Do you choose to either prosecute a burgler or put a lock on your door but not both? That said, the media industry as a whole has pushed more than what's necessary to protect its content (eg. DMCA, extending the copyright window) and a more fruitful course of action is to get Congress to change those laws.
    • _mdpn 8y ago
      >Do you choose to either prosecute a burgler or put a lock on your door but not both? Physical property and intellectual property are not the same, so this analogy does not hold. Copyright is fundamentally a balancing act between these two opposing interests: - the right of a creator to make money of their creation for a limited time - the right of the public "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" There is no such duty for a physical property owner to allow others to access, view, or build upon his property. If you choose to use technological means to deny society the second interest above you should not also be allowed to claim the protection of the first interest above.
• dec0dedab0de 8y ago
  Right, thats the whole thing that sucks about DRM and these video providers in general. Not only do they want to protect their content from unauthorized viewers, they want to control how it is consumed. Which to me is especially outrageous because netflix and youtube are the only two with a good user experience. (I used to count Hulu, but at some point they really fell off) I would think that Amazon would lead the charge for an open standard for distributing video which handles DRM, subscription, pay per view, etc. and then all the non-Netflixes would publish to that standard, and let player applications thrive. Even when using a Roku it feels like each app is completely different. And most of them suck. Imagine if in 1985 Prism, HBO, and Showtime all manufactured their own TVs and required you to use them, but they all had wildly different layouts and remotes. The idea of syncing up two video streams is awesome, I can see people enjoying that, and it would encourage people to pay for whatever services their friends have. Though it does sound a bit similar to rabb.it
  • sigi45 8y ago
    The world doesn't rotate around netflix and co. You do not need to consume them if you don't want to. There is also no right from yourside to how you wish you like to consume it. I would prefer to have NO DRM of course don't get me wrong. But still in this case, it is not your decision and apparently most people really don't care for that at all. They wanna see netflix in there browser. Thats why google and co did it. Thats why no one cares that there might be a electorn based browser somewhere which is unable to implement its core feature of sync viewing. And while i like the idea, just because is just not good enough. Noone will cancel there netflix subscription over this.
    • hombre_fatal 8y ago
      I wanted to be sure that there were multiple instance of this in your posting history (there are) before I commented, but you regularly use "there" in place of possessive "their". I would want someone to correct me on a fundamental grammar mistake in Spanish, so I felt it would be useful to correct you here.
      • 8y ago
• cmsimike 8y ago
  I don't know if this will be helpful to you but an open source media player, Kodi, recently added support for Netflix in the latest version of the app (by implementing a DRM engine for people to use). This requires the use of the widevine library which then downloads things behind the scenes upon use (I believe). https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=329767 https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=329767 I can't imagine Google gave the OK to Kodi to use widevine so maybe you can see what they did?
  • noitsnot 8y ago
    I hope Kodi makes some decent progress. I installed it a few weeks back and it is a rough experience. The docs on how to do simple things seem to be nonexistant because they don't want to be sued and shutdown entirely.
    • cmsimike 8y ago
      I think Kodi has made amazing progress. I've not had issues getting it installed on different devices since the 15.x days. Currently run it on 4 different dedicated devices in my apartment as well as some mobile and media devices. > The docs on how to do simple things seem to be nonexistant because they don't want to be sued and shutdown entirely. What docs are you looking for? They have a very extensive wiki as well as an active community on their own forum.
      • noitsnot 8y ago
        I didn't know it existed and it wasn't for lack of trying. I landed in the forum a few times which didn't help. Bing or Google a simple query where you would expect the official Kodi website or Wiki to show in the results. For example: "How to stream Netflix on Kodi".
        • cmsimike 8y ago
          Up until a few months ago, natively playing netflix was not possible with a released version of Kodi. Now it is using the link I posted!
• otterley 8y ago
  Flagging for inaccurate/inflammatory title. Google isn’t stopping the author from creating a web browser.
  • zepto 8y ago
    In an absolute sense this is true, but in all practical senses the title holds.
    • djmips 8y ago
      I feel like the op is missing technique and blaming Google with inflammatory title and preying on people's hated of DRM. If this was a more mundane technical problem it wouldn't be at the top of HN and it would be obvious that they just don't have the chops.
  • ambicapter 8y ago
    Just from creating a browser with a reasonable feature set, like, say, the ability to play non-obscure videos.
    • kllrnohj 8y ago
      Why can't the author do the same thing Firefox does, which also uses Widevine DRM with no issues?
      • ambicapter 8y ago
        RTFA. Widevine is owned by Google. Google gives Firefox permission to use Widevine. Google took 4 months to give this individual a one-line rejection, ostensibly his only option for supporting DRM in a chromium-based solution like the one he is using (Electron). Now what?
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • 8y ago
• wolfgke 8y ago
  As I often write here on HN: "Learn the lessson not to make yourself dependent on a despot.".
  • smaddock 8y ago
    This is true, but isn't always possible if you want to ship within a reasonable time frame.
• mangecoeur 8y ago
  If only we'd been warned about the risks of handing over so much influence to Google by basing everything around their browser... >-<
  • holoduke 8y ago
    And don't forget mobile.
  • jhasse 8y ago
    The situation would be the same, if his web browser was a fork of Firefox.
• alexnewman 8y ago
  I wont use browsers with widevine. I refused to include widevine in any browser I worked on. Widevine is clearly a backdoor and chrome is often installed setuid root
  • 130e13a 8y ago
    out of curiosity, which browser(s) do you use?
    • alexnewman 8y ago
      I use my own personally modified version of brave. Why did my above comment get downvoted ?
  • asveikau 8y ago
    Who installs chrome as setuid root?
    • alexnewman 8y ago
      Anywhere that namespaces aren’t supported. It steps privs down after startup. I’m amused at this post getting marked down so much
    • alexnewman 8y ago
      https://forum.unity.com/threads/why-does-chrome-sandbox-need-root-rights-suid-set.365818/ https://forum.unity.com/threads/why-does-chrome-sandbox-need...
  • alexnewman 8y ago
    Huh, i guess that confirms widevine's illicit use of pushing unsigned libraries is being covered up.
• mr_puzzled 8y ago
  How does firefox manage to play drm content? Maybe OP could use firefox's approach? Someone mentioned below that redistributing is not allowed, but downloading at runtime is ok. Not sure about it, but if anyone knows about this, please explain it to the rest of us.
  • strict9 8y ago
    Because OP is using a Chromium-based browser which has only one option.
  • jhasse 8y ago
    I would guess that Firefox's approach is only possible, because Mozilla made sure it is. I doubt that anyone else is allowed to "redistribute" the binary by automatically downloading it at runtime without getting a license.
  • GalacticDomin8r 8y ago
    https://support.google.com/widevine/troubleshooter/6027072 https://support.google.com/widevine/troubleshooter/6027072
• avmich 8y ago
  Is the Chrome web browser buildable from sources? If yes, what's the difference which allows Chrome to work with DRM and doesn't allow another code to do that? I don't think I understand the problem. What does it mean "won't allow DRM" - you can always write code which you like, right?
  • deckar01 8y ago
    Building Chrome requires downloading proprietary binaries that they licensed. Chromium does not include these and does not include widevine by default, but it can be installed as a plugin. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/chromium#Widevine_Content_Decryption_Module_plugin https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/chromium#Widevine_Conte...
    • avmich 8y ago
      Can't those proprietary binaries be used in another browser? Is the API known?
      • deckar01 8y ago
        > licensed The author can't get a license.
      • int_19h 8y ago
        It requires a license to actually use. And it looks like they verify your binary's signature in the licensed version.
        • avmich 8y ago
          I'm not sure I understand. Can't you have Chromium browser work with that software? And modified Chromium browser, e.g. Firefox? I don't remember I accept licenses at least as a user.
          • darkpuma 8y ago
• mehmetkose 8y ago
  why you are not using WebView on Desktop? something like this https://deskgap.com https://deskgap.com instead of using Electron
• andrewmcwatters 8y ago
  "I tried creating an Electron app with Widevine support and Google won't let me."
• kowdermeister 8y ago
  This sucks, I know how bad if feels when you rely on a major vendor that can make or break your product. I was somewhat relieved that it happened when I already abandoned the project for a better one but had I invested more time into it I would have been furious. The only thing I wonder here is that DRM was a thing when he started working on this project, didn't he see this coming? By this I mean that project research should start with the hardest part, at least that's what I usually do.
• amsdmasdmasdasd 8y ago
  That's a good thing tho
• lanevorockz 8y ago
  DRM is just another extension of the lockup of information. Sadly, the information age ended up doing the opposite than I hoped. We should be pushing for a more free and open thinking society, instead we are capitalising all information while banning any dissenters.
• vanilla 8y ago
  Here is a good talk on that topic[1]. Widevine does not come bundled with Firefox & Chrome. Each installation has to download the Widevine binary. You would be able to use the binary to implement DRM support, like Kodi did. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3R_snaDDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3R_snaDDc
• iheartpotatoes 8y ago
  I didn't follow the extension workaround. Won't google block that as well, or are the different rules for extensions? Also, thanks for pushing on them. I've seen numbers posts on HN recently about the opaque walls folks encounter on Google, Amazon and Facebook property monopolies. This is just another great example. Would it make sense to file this with the EFF? Someone has to be collecting all of these issues for the impending class-action suit?
• alvalentini 8y ago
  The real issue I see is that there is no commercial appetite for such a solution and that this world is so dominated by humongous corporations that things like this simply have no solution.
• shmerl 8y ago
  DRM is not compatible with open source approach. So ditch DRM if you are making an open source browser. You'll deal with less garbage in result.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• shawnz 8y ago
  Google is being blatantly anticompetitive here and it's definitely not fair to OP. But as an aside, I actually would prefer this functionality to be provided by a browser extension rather than a separate app, like the OP describes at the end of the article. Please pursue this option! I think it would be much more convenient than having to launch a separate app, even if the functionality is reduced.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • smaddock 8y ago
    There are some features which make a desktop application more appealing to me. One feature required changing browser behavior [1] which wouldn't otherwise be possible. A WebExtension could work, but has potential to run into the same gatekeeping issue of being removed by Google from their Web Store. With Google having ~70% market share, this wouldn't be a good outcome. [1] https://github.com/electron/electron/pull/17203 https://github.com/electron/electron/pull/17203
    • shawnz 8y ago
      This definitely looks like a convenient feature although it's something I would ideally have added right into Chrome. It is not really related to the streaming/syncing responsibilities of the app. Any site which plays video could benefit from this non-window-resize-fullscreen feature. Another option could be creating two extensions: one for the video syncing, and one for the non-window-resize-fullscreen. That way if the latter gets rejected it wouldn't affect the former. Note I'm sure some people definitely prefer the desktop app approach and I wish you all the best getting the approvals you need for that. This is just how I would prefer to use it.
    • 43920 8y ago
      This is sort of a ridiculous hack, but you could probably override Element.prototype.webkitRequestFullscreen, and manually resize the element to take up the whole browseer window rather than entering fullscreen.
• holoduke 8y ago
  Yes there are many more examples not widely known where Google is abusing their monopoly. Firebase fcm push notification system is a good example. If you want to implement your own push notification service on android phones. Well too bad. Only Google is allowed to have special privileges so that their firebase service on phones works even when a phone is in doze mode. If you run into firebase quota issues like our company is having it is just too bad.
• geofft 8y ago
  > Google, the creators of the open source browser Chrome, won’t allow DRM in an open source project. Chrome is not an open-source browser. Chromium is, and Chromium doesn't have Widevine support. Download and sandbox the Widevine binary blob the same way that Firefox does. Done.
  • jhasse 8y ago
    > Download and sandbox the Widevine binary blob the same way that Firefox does. Done. Mozilla has a license to redistribute the binary. You can't simply do that (legally).
    • geofft 8y ago
      Did Metastream ask for a license to redistribute the binary? We don't know anything about the conversation with Widevine other than that they wrote, "I'm sorry but we're not supporting an open source solution like this". They clearly are supporting an open source solution like Firefox. So what is the difference, and can Metastream be less "like this" and more like Firefox?
      • jhasse 8y ago
        I would guess, that they fear, that Metastream could implement a feature, where only one of the users has paid for the content and streams it to his peers.
        • smaddock 8y ago
          Those were my initial thoughts, Google misunderstanding how Metastream works. It only sends playback information, no streaming of video/audio content. Each user needs to be logged into their own session on each web service.
        • syn0byte 8y ago
          They have complete access to the source to verify its function. They just don't because fuck you that's why. What are you going to do about it anyway, cry on HN and Twitter? Mozilla is Mozilla and can mount a defense so they get a license deal.
• ezoe 8y ago
  So he tried to create a chromium based browser which sync the DRM protected video playback with other peer and blocked by Google. He totally deserved it. He was just wasting time to build software on top of evil DRM.
  • smaddock 8y ago
    I don't see the issue here, no video or audio content is being streamed. It's only state such as time and play/pause.
• DCKing 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, is there any reusable alternative for Google's Widevine module? It seems both Chromium and Firefox use this, and all other open source browsers are based on them. Safari and Internet Explorer DRM would be tied to specific platforms and also not reusable, I'm guessing? How (re)usable is Adobe's Primetime DRM for something like this? Primetime was removed from Firefox in version 52 (pre-Quantum) in early 2017 [1]. Are there any others? [1]: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/10/firefox-52-adobe-primetime-cdm-removal/ https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/10/firefox-52-adobe-primetime...
  • smaddock 8y ago
    There might be potential for Microsoft's PlayReady DRM with their move to a Chromium-based browser. I contacted them while waiting to hear back from Widevine and got this response. > For Windows Electron/Chromium will not work with PlayReady at this time. I have provided your feedback to the engineering team for future planning. Currently PlayReady can be integrated in a PWA/(Windows Store HTML/JS app) and there would be no royalties on Windows.
• sigi45 8y ago
  Sooo the author builds a browser with the assumption that he just can use DRM stuff? Thats an assumption i would say is not given. If you build something like this and you expect to support DRM, do your homework on DRM before you start building stuff around it.
• noodlesUK 8y ago
  All this content having DRM drives me totally crazy. I don’t have a windows machine or games console where I live that can output 4K, but I have a laptop and desktop running various Linux distros that both have very nice 4K monitors. It appears that the only places where I can get content that will play at native quality on them is through the usual illegitimate sources or through breaking BD drm. Anyone who says that this (Netflix, Amazon etc) is a smooth process doesn’t care about quality (or heaven forbid offline access). I’m sure Netflix likes the free reduction in bandwith for desktop users though...
• merb 8y ago
  Basically it's possible to download Google Chrome and extract it: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/?h=chromium-widevine https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/?h=chromium-wide... Basically Arch Linux Downloads Google Chrome, Extracts the *.so file and puts it into the chromium lib directory. (This could've been done in his own browser aswell.
  • grapeli23 8y ago
    There is no such package 'chromium-widevine' in the Arch Linux repository. sudo pacman -S chromium-widevine error: target not found: chromium-widevine
    • rcxdude 8y ago
      It is in the AUR (arch-linux user repository). Packages in there are submitted by the community and there is deliberately some barrier to installing them, including requiring that you build them yourself (this is because the packages are not vetted before they are posted, and they could be malicious).
• Exuma 8y ago
  What is "synchronized playback"?
  • smaddock 8y ago
    Every user in a session will see the same playback timestamp for a video.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• nprateem 8y ago
  Open an EU anti-trust case. If you're not an EU citizen try finding someone who can take it to the EU who is, or look into whether you can get the EU to act on your behalf anyway.
• 4RealFreedom 8y ago
  I wonder if you could fight DRM content in Japan. Last week there was a story on HN about a few people being prosecuted for spreading a virus which was actually just a javascript trick. DRM seems like it would fall under the same category.
• codewiz 8y ago
  Google blocked... what? The blogpost shows the answer from Google, but crucially omits to say what exactly the author was asking for.
  • rement 8y ago
    Widevine is the DRM component used in chromium based browsers. You need a license from them to run DRM based content in your browser. Widevine was purchased by Google in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine
• toyg 8y ago
  (Burning some karma...) So he built an app that is a thin layer over someone else’s app, to play someone else’s content, and he’s upset he cannot get for free the nice things someone else paid for (in development time). My heart bleeds.
  • anonymousab 8y ago
    I see nothing indicating that he wouldn't opt to write a compliant DRM plugin at his own cost, or pay for the license or plugin if it were required.
    • toyg 8y ago
      He said the browser cannot be completed because Google won't allow their stuff to be used in an OSS project. It's clear he never countenanced the possibility that * gasp * somebody could deny him access to their software. He might have offered to pay, but the substance is basically the same: he assumed he could get access to somebody else's stuff, when there was no such guarantee (if anything, Google carefully insulating it from Chromium should have been a big hint of things to come).
• jsdevtom 8y ago
  What is a DRM?
• tlb 8y ago
  I'd be happy to use one browser for Netflix and another browser with better privacy/security/adblock/anti-track/bookmarking/speed for everything else. I'm already in this world: I use Brave for most things, except for a banking site where it doesn't work.\ The browser should explain clearly what's wrong and what to do when a site requires DRM. Don't be like QuickTime, where opening any unsupported file bounces you to a FAQ page where the question you most likely have ("how do I view this video") leads to a huge run-around.
• peterwwillis 8y ago
  Is this a late april fools joke? "Metastream: Watch streaming media with friends." He's complaining that they won't let him use DRM. But his project's purpose is to literally broadcast media to your friends. DRM exists to prevent that.
  • smaddock 8y ago
    It doesn't. It transmits playback state, but doesn't stream any video or audio content. Each user needs to be logged into web services on their own client.
  • jedikv 8y ago
    >But his project's purpose is to literally broadcast media to your friends Judging from the repo, there is no broadcast of content. Please take the time to read and think critically before you react with misinformation
• ikeboy 8y ago
  Interestingly, Amazon prime didn't give me HD video on Ubuntu chrome, but worked and gave me 1080p if I changed the user agent to a recent windows one, in chrome. Still can't get 4k anywhere.
• vkaku 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure there are options, none of which are efficient, but here they are: 1. Firefox consumes the Widevine as a plugin, and the way to load that may be a straightforward one, through an interface. 2. Support a different DRM scheme that has an open interface and is popular 3. Disassemble Widevine or talk to hackers who've understood it. Clean room disassembly is legal in many parts of the world. 4. Don't drop this project, but put up a placeholder and evangelise better DRM standards. Pretty sure that if it involves crypto and it's not open source, it is an attractive target with an exploit in the works. That's what it is going to lead to, and by then you'd already have a working implementation.
• sli 8y ago
  > ...the creators of the open source browser Chrome, ... This assumption is a mistake the author is making. Chrome is, for all practical purposes, closed-source and proprietary. It's Chromium that is open-source. So far as I know, Chromium does not have Widevine included by default.
  • tomxor 8y ago
    This is correct, I use chromium - netflix and amazon do not work... the rest of the web is perfectly fine though. It may have been a stupid decision for W£C to include DRM in the spec, but frankly the rest of the internet doesn't give a shit - As far as OSS is concerned it's another 3rd party blob like flash and not a true part of the web. As far as I can tell the author is trying to use this third party blob specifically - not the rest of the browser for which no one has any authority in the creation of...
    • tellak 8y ago
      I use chromium and Widevine works fine (Netflix works fine)
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • Operyl 8y ago
      I use chromium, Widevine and the related sites work just fine here.
  • JoshTriplett 8y ago
    Chromium can download and install the Widevine module, just as Firefox can. The Widevine module, however, is closed source and proprietary.
    • heroic 8y ago
      I use Brave and Netflix and PrimeVideo work fine. How does that happen?
• deadmik3 8y ago
  Another story to add to the long list of "don't like X? just create your own" fails thanks to the monoliths running the internet
• ktm5j 8y ago
  I also find the title to be rather sensational.. "I tried creating a web browser" ^ "Google blocked me" implies that Google blocked them from creating a web browser.. which is not the case.
  • danShumway 8y ago
    If a single company can effectively decide whether a bunch of 3rd party sites that they don't control work on your browser, how is that any different? Google is effectively deciding that anyone other than pre-approved browsers can't play Netflix content. If an ISP fully embraced the Net Neutrality repeal and started blocking video content, and someone posted on HN that ISPs were "blocking them from building a streaming service", no one would be complaining that, "technically you can build it, you just can't reach any of your customers." Everyone on HN would understand that part of building a service is the having the ability to reach customers. In the same way, part of building a web browser is having the ability to render web content. If Google can block your custom browser from rendering content, then for all practical purposes they are blocking your ability to build a browser.
    • ryanolsonx 8y ago
      > In the same way, part of building a web browser is having the ability to render web content. If Google can block your custom browser from rendering content, then for all practical purposes they are blocking your ability to build a browser. Eh.. in a way, but not really. It can still work as a web browser but a web site can still render however they'd like based on your user agent. If I made a site today, I could add the same functionality if I wanted to. Since I own the site, that's my choice. I completely agree that Google should _not_ block their content based on your custom web browser. That is evil.
      • danShumway 8y ago
        I would still claim two differences on the user agent side of things: First, any browser can report any user agent they want. There are a number of examples of browsers faking or changing user agents to get around sites that try to differentiate based on those strings. Second, while any individual web site can implement logic based on the user agent, that's the sole choice of the web operator. By restricting Widevine access, Google is blocking rendering of content on other people's domains. The non-ISP, in-browser analogy I would use would be if Google decided that in order to render an AMP page in your new browser, you first needed to get their permission. They're not just blocking their own content, they're blocking an entire category of technology. It's also worth mentioning that even under the user agent analogy, if this headline was, "Google uses user agents to block Firefox from accessing Youtube", pretty much every person on HN would call that anti-competitive behavior worthy of regulation.
• kwindla 8y ago
  Let's add the US Congress and the EU to the long list of parties to blame for the DRM situation. "Reverse engineering" software for the purposes of "circumventing" copyright is illegal. "Circumventing" is much more broadly defined than it should be. It's not just illegal to redistribute copyrighted material. That's the point of copyright and has been the case for a long time. It's also illegal to watch/consume content yourself in any way that the copyright-holder didn't explicitly enable, even if you have a general right to watch/consume that content. You're not allowed to create a browser that can watch DRM-protected Netflix content. And if someone does create such a browser, it's illegal for you to use it, even if you pay for a Netflix subscription. That's pretty new (circa 1996 or so). In 2002 I went to see Lawrence Lessig argue the Supreme Court challenge of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which introduced these anti-circumvention concepts. Here are my notes: https://allafrica.com/staff/kwindla/eldred.txt https://allafrica.com/staff/kwindla/eldred.txt
  • krzyk 8y ago
    The above is most probably for US based clients. E.g. in Poland it is perfectly legal to watch copyrighted material as long as you don't redistribute it. It is also legal to do a reverse engineering of software to allow it to run on your system, software, hardware (so I think a browser also applies). (I'm not a lawyer, just reading some of the more technical law articles)
    • the8472 8y ago
      Poland is an EU member, so your government must have some implementation of the EU Copyright directive, which includes somewhat similar anti-circumvention clauses as the DMCA[0]. There are lots of differences in the details, but I wouldn't make a blanket statement that it's completely legal without actually checking the corresponding laws. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive#Technological_protection_measures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive#Technologi...
      • janoc 8y ago
        You need to realize that the EU "directives" are not actually the law (aka the thing that will get you prosecuted). The directives are "transposed" into national law, country by country - and each country can (and does) add a local "flavor" to it. So if the Poles have watered down the anti-circumvention clause (it is very vague in the directive, giving a ton of maneuvering space to the national parliaments), the situation he is describing is very possible. On the opposite side of the spectrum is traditionally France, with its (fortunately incredibly ineffective) three strike system. Very different approaches to things even though both countries are implementing the same copyright directive. The other type of texts coming from Brussels are "regulations" - those go into effect immediately, without having to be rewritten into national laws. GDPR is an example of such regulation.
• new12345 8y ago
  I think its logical step on the part of Google. They invested in integrating Widevine in Chrome and they want it to be a distinguishing feature of Chrome. Why do you expect a profit seeking company to help their own competition?
• babypuncher 8y ago
  Is there anything preventing a Firefox-derived project from using the Widevine CDM plugin? Or does that only work with official builds from Mozilla?
• maketechfair 8y ago
  I hear you, it seems that technology is all about stonewalling these days... I'm trying to bring to light a bug that allows to skip Ads in YouTube (no add-ons, extensions, etc.), but just can't get any attention: https://twitter.com/maketechfair https://twitter.com/maketechfair
• apk-d 8y ago
  What IS the point of video DRM anyway? I can't remember a single instance of a thing I wanted to watch not being available for torrenting over the years, maybe barring some really obscure television episodes I wouldn't find on Netflix anyway. I do pay for (most of) the content I watch these days (now that I can kinda-sorta afford it), but it's not because it's not available one thepiratebay search away. Mainstream stuff usually comes out within hours of the release.
• bredren 8y ago
  Regarding the product, is this for allowing friends to watch Game of Thrones and other shows together remotely? Because I had this idea and was wondering what tech would be required to solve it.
• jwildeboer 8y ago
  “I forked Chromium and Google refuses to give me the proprietary bits” seems to be a better headline IMHO.
• numbsafari 8y ago
  > Waiting 4 months for a minimal response from a vendor with > such a large percentage of the market is unacceptable. Umm... expecting any kind of response from a vendor with such a large percentage of the market is... kinda arrogant. Who are you to demand any kind of response from anyone? Big project or small? You'd probably be less offended if you had a better sense of self awareness about the nature of your relationship with Google. Thinking that Google should kowtow to your desire to build a product is pretty foolish. You need to build a product and get some traction and then have some leverage. Widevine is evil. Google is evil. ... but so is Electron, and requiring your users to use a custom browser to use your product / feature. How about an Web Extension that coordinates playback in the browser, as opposed to a whole custom browser?
  • CodeCube 8y ago
    He addresses this point specifically in his post ... developing it as an extension would reduce the features he can support, and further entrench it in google's walled garden (since he'd have to publish it on the chrome store). I don't have much more context in this person's project than anyone else, but your response is kind of the point, one vendor has too much power because they can't be expected to support any kind of innovative ecosystem; yeah, that's not a great state of affairs, and begins to echo/suggest anti-competitive practices (whether on purpose, or just as a function of their size)
    • toastal 8y ago
      Wouldn't a WebExtensions get you further out of the walled garden? Electron you're stuck with Blink where WebExtensions work with Gecko and Webkit as well.
      • Moseman23 8y ago
        Yes, but he seems to be saying he wants the wide distribution that comes from being on the dominant browser without being in the "walled garden" of the Chrome store, since the other browsers have vanishing market share.
    • 8y ago
• boramalper 8y ago
  Since when HN started (up)voting items by their title? The title is nothing but a textbook example of clickbait: it's sensational but worse, it's deceiving (Google's response is NOT at all related to your electron based browser with <0.001% market share, nor has Google "blocked" you in the first place...) Gosh I am angry.
• lunulata 8y ago
  People seem to get surprised when Google acts like a for profit corporation... why? That's exactly what they are and have been for a very long time. I guess they have a good publicist. In reality, Google discourages competition in the browser, search engine, and email space by denying some of their many services (which you shouldn't depend on for open source software unless it has an open source license) and worse, blacklisting competitors. I've read posts from creators of search engines and email services on here that eventually were blacklisted by Google to squelch their growth.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• ben509 8y ago
  If you had to run this stuff on another platform, you'd just spin up a VM or container, right? To get around the legal issue that they won't do this for an open source project, just create a shell corporation. That shell corp then writes a closed-source plugin wrapper in another project entirely. Put widevine in that wrapper. Then your open source project just has to include that plugin.
• KorematsuFred 8y ago
  Can someone please give me a Tl;dr for this post ? Why would google have any say in someone making a web browser ? Where does their path have to cross ?
  • lostmyoldone 8y ago
    This certainly isn't short, but I don't know how to make it shorter, as I don't know what you don't know, and what you want to know. You need a DRM "capable" video component to be allowed to play most internet video content that isn't directly user generated, or news. The consequence is that the giants holding the rights to these components are effectively holding the keys to a decent chunk of the internet. For a browser specifically made for synced playback of movies, they essentially hold the keys to all of it. The big movie studios simply won't allow either streaming or download without you using one of these solutions on both ends of the stream. The author applied for some form of license of the purportedly free and open Widevine DRM component which is used/approved by almost all big streaming sites. The request was rejected citing a somewhat odd reason: That the project was open source. This is odd because https://github.com/castlabs/electron-releases https://github.com/castlabs/electron-releases is open source, apparently "blessed" by Google/Widevine, and available to use on the only condition you get a license from Widevine. Which should then be impossible? Which leads us to several somewhat plausible conclusions. Either the author requested the wrong licence/needs a feature not available in previously mentioned projects, someone at Widevine made a mistake, or there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on to either make it seem Widevine is accessible to anyone when it truly isn't.
  • lostmyoldone 8y ago
    My mistake, the repo linked apparently doesn't contain the source, it's closed. But apparently not because the current solution requires it, but because the repo contains older versions which contained proprietary code or data. The latter should be rather easy to fix.
• emilfihlman 8y ago
  What's the effort being done in cracking these DRM schemes? Surely they are only running on the browser userspace and thus entirely crackable?
• sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Anyone care to explain why widevine would not support specifically an 'open sourced' solution? As opposed to a 'closed source'?
• ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
  The core functionality of Metastream (his browser), the ability to sync videos and watch them as a group is very cool and super useful in a classroom or study group environment. Does anyone know if there is another way of going about doing this?
• miki123211 8y ago
  When Doctorov cried wolf. Nobody listened. The wolf is here.
• jokoon 8y ago
  I noticed that some video streaming services are using HTS, some weird tech that is not file based, which makes it quite difficult to download those files, even downloadvideohelper won't do it directly, you need some third party executable. The web is mostly open, but there are still things out there built to explicitely prevent users from doing what they want, and it seems that even firefox supports this tech.
• yellowapple 8y ago
  Maybe look at how Firefox does it? Seems to have no problem downloading and running Widevine on-the-fly (it even sandboxes it).
• gnomewascool 8y ago
  Regarding browser extensions, the Firefox "webextensions" API is (mostly) compatible with Chromium's, so with relatively little effort you could target both the Firefox and Chromium families of browsers. Firefox compatibility is valuable because Firefox extensions don't have to be distributed through the Mozilla add-on store (they do need to be signed by AMO, but provided your extension isn't doing anything illegal, that should not be an issue). Finally, you could try redistributing unbranded Firefox or Chromium with your extension pre-installed. Waterfox (a Firefox fork) can have DRM — it's disabled by default, but it can be switched on — and I don't think they put a great deal of effort into it, so I think that your "version" of Firefox could also easily have DRM. (I have no idea whether the same holds for Chromium.)
  • ehsankia 8y ago
    I was curious about this too, and I wonder if OP can clarify what they mean by "reduced features". What exactly is it that they want to do, which requires them to create a whole new browser, vs just creating a website/extension. I would much rather have a webapp than have to download a whole new browser just to watch videos with a friend. Most of the stuff listed on the github (WebRTC, WebSocket) are just normal web technologies. The only other thing I see is "Discord Rich Presence".
  • nyxxie 8y ago
    This. I’m currently working on a project to do what OP is doing, and this is almost certainly the most painful route to go down. All of this could be done with WebRTC, and you get the bonus that it’s even p2p so you don’t even have to handle video content yourself if you don’t want to (if you do, you can mix in media servers like Kurento or Janus if you want). To further sell this approach, I built v1 of the streaming pipeline in like 2 weeks.
  • smaddock 8y ago
    Sorry for the late reply. Building Metastream as a web browser instead of a web extension was a complexity burden created solely by myself. One of the main requirements I wanted was the ability to use the app with as little centralized dependencies as possible. P2P is the primary way to connect to users with the app, but even that requires a centralized signaling solution which is prone to downtime. To mitigate this, users can also directly connect to an IP address with the appropriate ports forwarded. Listening on a socket is not supported by a web extension at this time. Additionally, some actions on the web require a "user gesture" to be performed such as fullscreening a video. I created an auto-fullscreen feature by simulating a user gestured mouse click. It also only fullscreens within the frame of the window instead of the entire screen. [1] Other features not possible with a web extension/app include local file reading (potential future feature) and Discord Rich Presence (currently implemented). [1] https://github.com/electron/electron/pull/17203 https://github.com/electron/electron/pull/17203
• 3327 8y ago
  HI Please post this and bring to the attention of the DOJ. Microsoft got broken up for anti-trust behavior that is PEANUTS relatively speaking today. Bill Gates was right, (proven overt time) - that the OS is not the competitive advantage - its the platform and ecosystem as a whole. Google should be broken up, so should facebook and so should Apple. Amazon? I don't know they seem fairly diversified and although are decimating e-commerce its a more difficult sell.
• conmarap 8y ago
  > Google, the creators of the open source browser Chrome Uhm... Chrome is positively not open source. Chromium is. Getting past this technicality, I can't help but wonder what other browser vendors that have forked Chromium did in order to not get blocked.
• voldacar 8y ago
  So is widevine essentially just a bunch of built-in javascript functions that the netflix website calls when you try to play a video? If so, couldn't you just copy and paste the implementation into your browser from the chrome source?
• Driky 8y ago
  "Don't be evil" they said... Most people working at google might be nice people but the one in control are the they ass holes that you will find anywhere else :-(
• burtonator 8y ago
  I had a similar response when developing Polar but for Electron and the MS app store. I write a few posts about it here: https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/13/microsoft-blocking-electron-apps-from-app-store.html https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/13/microsoft-blocking-electr... https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/28/dear-app-stores-dont-block-apps-lead-with-the-carrot.html https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/28/dear-app-stores-dont-bloc... It took me four weeks to unblock me and I finally had a chance to re-publish to the MS app store and I'm waiting for their final approval of my app. YES.. I can develop the app without being in an app store , but my distribution will be dramatically reduced. Doesn't make sense to have an app with no users. Google is probably not actually targeting this app specifically just that they've been insanely incompetent lately and screwing over developers ALL over the ecosystem including Android, Chrome Extensions, etc. Our chrome extension continues to need approval every time we publish it EVEN if we just update the assets/images. Google is really dropping the ball and pissing off developers left and right. Over at /r/androiddev people are actually talking about protests at Google IO...
• yason 8y ago
  I would assume Google would not even be allowed to let third-party developers use their DRM implementation even if they wanted to. The real stakeholders would grumble a stern no. If this is true the real fix would be to patch the copyright law, IP licensing, and the contracts with content producers.
• cprecioso 8y ago
  Maybe a solution for the problem in the post: one way to simulate Electron but using full Chrome instead of the DRM-less Chromium, is to make the app target Carlo[1] instead. It's basically what a Chrome app used to be (now deprecated), but run from a Node.js script. [1]: https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/carlo https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/carlo
• pytyper2 8y ago
  This seems like poor planning, I would have recommended to verify licenses for all required technology were available before investing time.
• timmit 8y ago
  anyway, you deserve my star. :thumb up
• krmboya 8y ago
  > “This is a prime example for why free as in beer is not enough. Small share browsers are at the mercy of Google, and Google is stalling us for no communicated-to-us reason.” - Brian Bondy, Co-founder & CTO of Brave Stallman strikes again
• arendtio 8y ago
  DRM is just a huge pile of shit. I mean, if it would actually work I would say okay, at least we have a solution that everyone is somehow happy with. But instead we consumers just loose. To give a few examples: - When I want to watch movies on Amazon Prime Video, there are some movies I can't watch in HD, even if I paid for HD (so the movie obviously exists in HD; probably dependent on the rights holder). The problem is that I can't see if I can watch the HD version before I buy the movie. - On Netflix, I don't get 1080 at all with my browser, even if I pay for 4k. - Every few weeks, Spotify pushes a broken version of their web player to the website and from one moment to the other, I can't listen to 'my' music anymore until they fix it. The good news is that it seems to happen less frequently lately. Nevertheless, that would not be a problem if I could listen to 'my' music with a normal mp3 player. - A few hours ago, I wanted to play a game, but guess what... Steam had a network problem [1] and didn't even let me enter the offline mode. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/stats/ https://store.steampowered.com/stats/
  • fratlas 8y ago
    The Netflix issue isn't really DRM, it's just a way to minimize bandwidth[1]; they found HQ 720 encodes to be sufficient quality for most consumers. I personally find it lacking. [1]: https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/per-title-encode-optimization-7e99442b62a2 https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/per-title-encode-optimiz...
    • monocasa 8y ago
      Nah, it's a DRM thing. You get 4k if you open it in edge with their PlayReady DRM.
      • eMSF 8y ago
        There are (or at least were) some titles which even Edge didn't show in HD, but the Windows Store application does (did). But even then, certain drivers like virtual audio devices might restrict all available methods to lousy SD quality that requires a full reinstall of Windows to reset.
    • 8y ago
• charlesdm 8y ago
  Not completely legal for distribution, but you can embed the Chrome Widevine binary in a Chromium Embedded Framework application. I have done so myself in the past. Works great.
• ggggtez 8y ago
  Sucks, I agree, but this shouldn't be surprising. No one wants to open source their DRM. The title made me think they blocked you from creating a browser, which clearly isn't the case, unless you really feel that Widevine support is necessary for a browser these days (is it? I have no idea...)
• whatamidoingyo 8y ago
  Stop using Google products. Should have used Firefox. Seriously. Stop allowing them to contain their control. As stated in the article, Google's browser has 70% market share. Firefox is the browser we need. "Don't be evil" has been changed, remember? They now embrace evil, they love it. Edit: downvote this all you want, I really don't care. You're going to be at fault for the destruction of the web in the future.
• snurk 8y ago
  A very misleading title. But the content is nothing to get upset about. Reasonable people can easily disagree: * Google didn't can can't block a new web browser from working. * OP is making an _opensource_ browser * OP's browser is specifically made for showing videos in some kind of P2P architecture. * OP is upset because he can't play some other peoples' videos in his new browser. The R in DRM, standing for Rights is relevant: this isn't your content, OP. Thousands of creatives, artists, and investors put time, sweat and blood into these. They've chosen DRM as the way to get paid. You have no right to their content. If you don't like DRM then vote with your feet - watch others' content, and find another way to compensate them.
• writepub 8y ago
  The title is totally and completely inaccurate. Google is NOT blocking the author from creating a web browser. Google is apparently unable to license the DRM code/binary to the author. Just to set the record straight, the author's browser is based off Chromium, funded largely by Google. However, for whatever reasons (and I can see many legal ones for the inability to license a DRM module), Google cannot license the DRM module. The author is free to implement it himself, Google is not "blocking" him. Another point of note - the author is NOT entitled to widevine, so this pitchforking of Google is simply uncalled for. If the author finds Google to be "blocking" him, maybe asking Apple or Mozilla for WideVine support in a browser that competes with their own offerings is a way to go, and to validate which company is actually willing to work with competing open source offerings
• trhway 8y ago
  Well, Google blocked the poster from creating a DRM player, not web browser - those are 2 very different things. DRM is eating the web.
• tathougies 8y ago
  Um... I think you can just re-use the widevine shared object that Google Chrome comes with. You can't distribute it, but you should be able to include instructions for those downloading your project on how to acquire it. But, I mean, Google is crappy. No surprise there.
• cryptokernel 8y ago
  Hilarious. But I wouldn't be surprised. Just leaving this here: https://coincircle.com/l/50VVxbObg3 https://coincircle.com/l/50VVxbObg3
• widevine 8y ago
  Widevine Support To be honest, I'd rather not browse locked content. Please ship the browser so that it displays a disparaging message about the entities that host the locked content, in a marked <div/> tag that explains what assholes they are.
• nerdile 8y ago
  So the article is complaining that companies that chose to create a gated consortium to protect content are exhibiting gatekeeping behaviors and not representing open ideals. Um, duh? These entities have elected to participate in two communities - open where it commoditizes their competitors (e.g. Chromium, Netflix service infra) and closed where it protects their differentiation (e.g. Chrome, Netflix licensed content). As an open community, instead of demanding access to the gated communities, and whining when companies innovate behind walls, we should be building better, richer solutions in the open.
• Daiz 8y ago
  Boy howdy, this is one subject where I loathe saying "I told you so", but... I sure told you so.[1] HTML DRM is antithetical to the Open Web itself. It was built on a sham of "plugin-free" media playback, but all we did was change Flash and Silverlight for a whole range of closed black boxes, which in turn are effectively all controlled by Big Media (to make it crystal clear: EME was built with third-party decryption modules in mind, and Big Media was obviously never going to support any sort of decryption modules that they couldn't control, so even if your custom browser supports EME it's completely useless without a Big Media-approved decryption module). And make no mistake: Requiring permission from Big Media to essentially build a fully-fledged browser is a 100% intended and expected outcome of HTML DRM as conceived. Big Media would love nothing more than to turn the entirety of the Open Web into Closed Web that they control, and with HTML DRM they've certainly achieved a great step toward doing so, to the detriment of public at wide. I'm sure they're positively salivating about the thought of eventually reaching The Right to Read![2] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7747142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7747142 [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  • WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    > The Right to Read As interesting to read as the first twelve times.
  • Ironchefpython 8y ago
    To be fair, even if there wasn't a DRM-standard, he still wouldn't be able to build his application, because there would still be DRM.
    • Simple_Guy 8y ago
      that's the important point. DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content. there's no getting around it. if you want it you have to play by their rules.
      • chii 8y ago
• tapatio 8y ago
  "Don't be evil."
• mikorym 8y ago
  Are users here who use others browsers than Firefox? For example, if you are browsing the web without looking at pictures, I sometimes find Lynx useful to filter out the clutter.
• musicale 8y ago
  How about the browser just tells the DRM that it's Firefox?
• gregknicholson 8y ago
  > the creators of the open source browser Chrome Chromium is open source, and Chrome may _look_ 99% identical, but we have no idea what hidden differences there are between Chromium and Chrome, because Chrome isn't open source.
• gregknicholson 8y ago
  > I’m now only left with two options regarding the fate of Metastream: stop development of a desktop browser version, or pivot my project to a browser extension with reduced features. Is there some reason you can't make a fork/distro of Firefox?
• shurcooL 8y ago
  > the open source browser Chrome That doesn’t sound right. It should either say “open source browser Chromium” or “closed source browser Chrome”.
• drosan 8y ago
  I certainly agree that overpowered Google folks are basically bunch of shady dweebs now, and DRM is garbage practice overall. However I simply cannot empathize with you because you made another Webkit/chromium-based thing, and that is certainly not the thing we need right now. With Google monopoly in the web the thing we need is the actual good deviation of their w3c 'standards' realization, like Firefox. Reskinning Chrome with arguably useful "multiplayer" play-pause feature is just meh.
• shapiro92 8y ago
  Can someone explain to me why this project requires a DRM? From my understanding the DRM is used to block people from taking the content itself, but if this has public/private/offline abilities what is the point of a DRM? it is supposed to be between peers.
• sipos 8y ago
  DRM never really works. The best implemented DRM makes it hardly any more inconvenient for people to use it, and people accept it most of the time, Steam for example. It always puts some people off, who end up pirating it when they wouldn't otherwise have, though. Even the best DRM is always cracked by those that want to. There is no DRM system that has ever been created that will not be defeated, because it is trying to achieve the impossible. You have to give legal consumers access to the content to consume it, so they always have access to copy it. It will never work. If DRM didn't exist, piracy would be a lot less common. Most people stopped pirating music when it became easily available without DRM. Ultimately, all DRM gets cracked, and this is the only real response to it. Annoyingly, DRM only doesn't hit sales harder because it is defeated. If it was impossible to defeat a particular piece of DRM, it would harm sales of content using it much more, but the harm to the content sellers is limited by the fact that it is always cracked early on and made available to consumers they have cut off. For example, I have a Netflix subscription, which I use in an otherwise open source browser, using the widevine plugin ripped out of Chrome. If this wasn't relatively easy, I would just not use Netflix. Netflix is only getting money from me because the DRM they use is easy to defeat illegally. If the DRM worked, I'd stop paying for Netflix, because I wouldn't be able to use it and it'd be much easier to watch the same content by downloading it from Usenet.
• cyborgx7 8y ago
  I have lost all sympathy for the big media industry. Pirate it all. Paying you just gives me a worse experience and you more power to make things worse. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition.
• chadlavi 8y ago
  Are there grounds to sue someone like Netflix under the ADA if their content is not accessible in a standards-compliant browser that happens not to be allowed to access closed-source DRM?
• hnsukas 8y ago
  I tried make any comment. Hacker news shadow banned me.
• 1337shadow 8y ago
  I already use chromium for most streaming, and firefox as main browser that i spend 97% of my time on (with noscript of course). If your browser is better than firefox I will switch, but you're not helped by my factor of love for firefox. As for DRM users, just post a version with the crack somewhere with a tor browser and fake identity and let the streisand effect be.
• wesleyvicthor 7y ago
  the size of this comments thread and the amount of information on it is directly proportional to the even bigger hole you are getting into. You either come with a well defined plan of revenue for a company, so you can fulfil their Legal statement or you will only transmit DRM free content.