6 ms·

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 br

by 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.
    - saurik 8y ago
      Right! And when the headline was Google uses user agents to block Windows Phone from accessing Google Maps (along with reports that changing the user agent made the software work fine), we all agreed on swift and decisive action against Google /s. https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/ https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/
      - danShumway 8y ago
        Oof, rereading this article in the present just hurts. To be fair, the 2013 ecosystem was a lot more Google friendly than the 2019 ecosystem is. I'm sure the average non-HN reader still wouldn't care today, but I would at least hope HN itself would have a different reaction.
    - judge2020 8y ago
      > By restricting Widevine access, Google is blocking rendering of content on other people's domains. This isn't good, but it's not arbitrary control. These companies chose to implement widevine, so they chose to allow Google to dictate who gets to legally use WV.
      - Reelin 8y ago
        The point isn't that the control was granted arbitrarily - as you note, the granting was explicit. The point is that as a result of that, we have arrived at a situation where Google is now capable of arbitrarily exercising control over this subset. This wouldn't be a problem if that subset was small, but it's not - it's huge, and ever growing.
  - dathinab 8y ago
    But times change and today playing videos (including DRM protected ones) is no longer a feature but a required part of a browser. A requirement which likely will get stronger with time. (Sure some "special purpose" browsers get away without, but they also only Target a very limited audience)
- ktm5j 8y ago
  I never meant to suggest that this wasn't a big deal, just that the title was intentionally dramatic to get more views.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Which has proved, time and again, to be the only way a lowly user can appeal or seek redress for grievances with Google. If you don't -- or can't -- raise a shitstorm on social media, you have no voice in their decisionmaking process. Break them up. They are no different from a competing government at this point.
    - ktm5j 8y ago
      I suppose you make a good point.
- Mindwipe 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? Because those third party sites choose to utilise closed software from that company. And Netflix doesn't only utilise Widevine as a DRM, it uses several different DRM systems, so Google don't have control over anything.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    This. Netflix is buying security for their product by doing this. We may all think (know) DRM is dumb, but DRM is more than just about how hard it is to hack. Sure, everyone could in theory reverse engineer this stuff. But the point is that it's only legally protected as long as it's at least not trivial. Open sourcing would probably invalidate their legal defences against people downloading Netflix movies.
    - 0815test 8y ago
      > invalidate their legal defences against people downloading Netflix movies. I highly doubt that. A ToS violation is still a ToS violation (in the case of Netflix, which is expressly a streaming service), and copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. The legal protection that's afforded to DRM itself is something that's literally only useful to you as a content holder if you're looking to abuse copyright and go far beyond what copyright law actually grants you! That's what makes the whole notion so problematic in the first place.
      - brianpgordon 8y ago
        Well, they are granting you a license to download the copyrighted content. That's the consideration you get in exchange for paying subscription fees. IANAL but it seems doubtful to me that copyright law on its own (without the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA) could be twisted to produce criminal penalties for downloading licensed content in a non-streaming way given that it's legal to download it in a streaming way. And ToS violations are not criminal acts.
  - 8y ago
- morpheuskafka 8y ago
  To be fair, I think that it's primarily the content owners pushing this ridiculousness. OP's project is not a general purpose browser, and it will not compete substantially with any Google products, so I don't think this is a case of Google trying to knock out OP. I completely agree that this is unacceptable... but I think the blame really rests on the content owners who forced this DRM in the first place. Every damn thing on Netflix is widely available on torrents in hours, so it's totally useless and just makes things worse for everyday consumers.
- rstuart4133 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? That's just a sensationalistic as the headline. There isn't a single company controlling and selling these modules. There is a several of them, in open competition. The OP chose Widevine because they are easiest, but with sufficient perseverance he could probably use any of them, or at least any that distribute x86 binaries. It's damned near impossible to prevent someone from running a binary if they really want to. I also found the original article difficult to swallow. It gave very little detail - so little we have no idea what Widevine said no to. For example, was it "could you provide Widevine and loan me an engineer to help me integrate it with my browser - but I can't pay you because it's all open source". Or was it "I've got it all going, I'm willing to pay you commercial rates per licence - how can I buy licences?" It if is the former hats off to Widevine for replying at all. As it is, we only get a small part of his side of the story, no insight at all into why Widevine reacted they way they did, and a headline that's guaranteed to get clicks. Call me paranoid, but I get the feeling I'm being manipulated.
  - smaddock 8y ago
    I've updated the article to include the email exchange, check the edit at the bottom.
the8472 8y ago
EME is part of web standards. So for some value of standards compliant web browser google can block you from implementing it. https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-encrypted-media-20170918/ https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-encrypted-media-20170918/
- gsnedders 8y ago
  EME does not require Widevine; you can implement EME in its entirety yourself, in open code. Widevine is only one of several implementations of a Content Decryption Module; it just so happens to be by far the easiest to license (though that doesn't mean that's easy!).
  - the8472 8y ago
    An EME implementation is not complete without a decryption module. And getting one is the problem here.
  - arendtio 8y ago
    So could I write a custom Content Decryption Module that would be able to decrypt Netflix content? Or would the content providers have to support my custom Content Decryption Module?
    - Mindwipe 8y ago
      A website can decide which Content Decryption Modules it would like to support, because ultimately the site runs the keyservers and can decide which CDM's keys it would like to generate. But EME includes a fully freely implementable Clearkey spec. Ultimately sites generally don't want to generate keys for it, but it can be done.
  - pornel 8y ago
    > you can implement EME in its entirety yourself, in open code Noope. Netflix has explicitly stated, at W3C, that they absolutely won't use any open EME implementation. In practice any open CDM that you implement yourself will be totally useless. The "open" parts of EME have no real utility, and exist only to be able derail criticism by making rhetorical arguments about hypothetical open implementation, even though it's by definition exactly the opposite what Netflix and Google designed EME for.
Phrodo_00 8y ago
I mean, it's a web browser aimed at media consumption. Not supporting DRM will sadly seriously restrict its usage.
haberman 8y ago
It made the top of HN with 945 votes (2x the votes of anything else right now). As much as we hear criticism of it on this site and elsewhere, clickbait headlines work.
- robertAngst 8y ago
  Is front page HN real?
snurk 8y ago
Absolutely. The title isn't just sensational, it's misleading. OP's browser is opensource and uses a P2P-like architecture. It sounds incompatible with current rights management. OP sounds like he feels entitled to others' work and efforts. If he wants to play videos in his browser, he can make them. Or find people who will make videos for free for him.
- phire 8y ago
  It's compatible. All OPs browser does is syncronse playback across users legitimate Netflix (or other) accounts. OPs broswer will pass the encrypted video through to the DRM plug-in, which will authenticate from Netflix through to the to the screen. It will decrypt the video, decode it, re-encrypt with hdcp and send it to the monitor. The DRM chain is intact. OPs browser can't be used to pirate the videos, or steal Netflix. All he needs is permission to ship the closed source DRM plug-in.
nofunsir 8y ago
It absolutely is blocking. You know as well as I do that this is a conversation that's likely been had behind closed doors at Alphabet.
drosan 8y ago
Yep I thought it was a legit new browser as well, but turned out we got another Webkit/chromium-based thing. Meh.

by 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.
  - saurik 8y ago
    Right! And when the headline was Google uses user agents to block Windows Phone from accessing Google Maps (along with reports that changing the user agent made the software work fine), we all agreed on swift and decisive action against Google /s. https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/ https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/
    - danShumway 8y ago
      Oof, rereading this article in the present just hurts. To be fair, the 2013 ecosystem was a lot more Google friendly than the 2019 ecosystem is. I'm sure the average non-HN reader still wouldn't care today, but I would at least hope HN itself would have a different reaction.
  - judge2020 8y ago
    > By restricting Widevine access, Google is blocking rendering of content on other people's domains. This isn't good, but it's not arbitrary control. These companies chose to implement widevine, so they chose to allow Google to dictate who gets to legally use WV.
    - Reelin 8y ago
      The point isn't that the control was granted arbitrarily - as you note, the granting was explicit. The point is that as a result of that, we have arrived at a situation where Google is now capable of arbitrarily exercising control over this subset. This wouldn't be a problem if that subset was small, but it's not - it's huge, and ever growing.
- dathinab 8y ago
  But times change and today playing videos (including DRM protected ones) is no longer a feature but a required part of a browser. A requirement which likely will get stronger with time. (Sure some "special purpose" browsers get away without, but they also only Target a very limited audience)
ktm5j 8y ago
I never meant to suggest that this wasn't a big deal, just that the title was intentionally dramatic to get more views.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Which has proved, time and again, to be the only way a lowly user can appeal or seek redress for grievances with Google. If you don't -- or can't -- raise a shitstorm on social media, you have no voice in their decisionmaking process. Break them up. They are no different from a competing government at this point.
  - ktm5j 8y ago
    I suppose you make a good point.
Mindwipe 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? Because those third party sites choose to utilise closed software from that company. And Netflix doesn't only utilise Widevine as a DRM, it uses several different DRM systems, so Google don't have control over anything.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  This. Netflix is buying security for their product by doing this. We may all think (know) DRM is dumb, but DRM is more than just about how hard it is to hack. Sure, everyone could in theory reverse engineer this stuff. But the point is that it's only legally protected as long as it's at least not trivial. Open sourcing would probably invalidate their legal defences against people downloading Netflix movies.
  - 0815test 8y ago
    > invalidate their legal defences against people downloading Netflix movies. I highly doubt that. A ToS violation is still a ToS violation (in the case of Netflix, which is expressly a streaming service), and copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. The legal protection that's afforded to DRM itself is something that's literally only useful to you as a content holder if you're looking to abuse copyright and go far beyond what copyright law actually grants you! That's what makes the whole notion so problematic in the first place.
    - brianpgordon 8y ago
      Well, they are granting you a license to download the copyrighted content. That's the consideration you get in exchange for paying subscription fees. IANAL but it seems doubtful to me that copyright law on its own (without the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA) could be twisted to produce criminal penalties for downloading licensed content in a non-streaming way given that it's legal to download it in a streaming way. And ToS violations are not criminal acts.
- 8y ago
morpheuskafka 8y ago
To be fair, I think that it's primarily the content owners pushing this ridiculousness. OP's project is not a general purpose browser, and it will not compete substantially with any Google products, so I don't think this is a case of Google trying to knock out OP. I completely agree that this is unacceptable... but I think the blame really rests on the content owners who forced this DRM in the first place. Every damn thing on Netflix is widely available on torrents in hours, so it's totally useless and just makes things worse for everyday consumers.
rstuart4133 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? That's just a sensationalistic as the headline. There isn't a single company controlling and selling these modules. There is a several of them, in open competition. The OP chose Widevine because they are easiest, but with sufficient perseverance he could probably use any of them, or at least any that distribute x86 binaries. It's damned near impossible to prevent someone from running a binary if they really want to. I also found the original article difficult to swallow. It gave very little detail - so little we have no idea what Widevine said no to. For example, was it "could you provide Widevine and loan me an engineer to help me integrate it with my browser - but I can't pay you because it's all open source". Or was it "I've got it all going, I'm willing to pay you commercial rates per licence - how can I buy licences?" It if is the former hats off to Widevine for replying at all. As it is, we only get a small part of his side of the story, no insight at all into why Widevine reacted they way they did, and a headline that's guaranteed to get clicks. Call me paranoid, but I get the feeling I'm being manipulated.
- smaddock 8y ago
  I've updated the article to include the email exchange, check the edit at the bottom.

the8472 8y ago

EME is part of web standards. So for some value of standards compliant web browser google can block you from implementing it. https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-encrypted-media-20170918/ https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-encrypted-media-20170918/

gsnedders 8y ago
EME does not require Widevine; you can implement EME in its entirety yourself, in open code. Widevine is only one of several implementations of a Content Decryption Module; it just so happens to be by far the easiest to license (though that doesn't mean that's easy!).
- the8472 8y ago
  An EME implementation is not complete without a decryption module. And getting one is the problem here.
- arendtio 8y ago
  So could I write a custom Content Decryption Module that would be able to decrypt Netflix content? Or would the content providers have to support my custom Content Decryption Module?
  - Mindwipe 8y ago
    A website can decide which Content Decryption Modules it would like to support, because ultimately the site runs the keyservers and can decide which CDM's keys it would like to generate. But EME includes a fully freely implementable Clearkey spec. Ultimately sites generally don't want to generate keys for it, but it can be done.
- pornel 8y ago
  > you can implement EME in its entirety yourself, in open code Noope. Netflix has explicitly stated, at W3C, that they absolutely won't use any open EME implementation. In practice any open CDM that you implement yourself will be totally useless. The "open" parts of EME have no real utility, and exist only to be able derail criticism by making rhetorical arguments about hypothetical open implementation, even though it's by definition exactly the opposite what Netflix and Google designed EME for.

Phrodo_00 8y ago

I mean, it's a web browser aimed at media consumption. Not supporting DRM will sadly seriously restrict its usage.

haberman 8y ago

It made the top of HN with 945 votes (2x the votes of anything else right now). As much as we hear criticism of it on this site and elsewhere, clickbait headlines work.

robertAngst 8y ago
Is front page HN real?

snurk 8y ago

Absolutely. The title isn't just sensational, it's misleading. OP's browser is opensource and uses a P2P-like architecture. It sounds incompatible with current rights management. OP sounds like he feels entitled to others' work and efforts. If he wants to play videos in his browser, he can make them. Or find people who will make videos for free for him.

phire 8y ago
It's compatible. All OPs browser does is syncronse playback across users legitimate Netflix (or other) accounts. OPs broswer will pass the encrypted video through to the DRM plug-in, which will authenticate from Netflix through to the to the screen. It will decrypt the video, decode it, re-encrypt with hdcp and send it to the monitor. The DRM chain is intact. OPs browser can't be used to pirate the videos, or steal Netflix. All he needs is permission to ship the closed source DRM plug-in.

nofunsir 8y ago

It absolutely is blocking. You know as well as I do that this is a conversation that's likely been had behind closed doors at Alphabet.

drosan 8y ago

Yep I thought it was a legit new browser as well, but turned out we got another Webkit/chromium-based thing. Meh.